Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION

North-West Area

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Postmaster-General what arrangements are contemplated to cover the North-West of England, including such towns as Barrow-in-Furness, Blackpool, Kendal, Lancaster, Morecambe, Preston and Ulverston, with television broadcasting.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): The B.B.C. hopes that its television station at Holme Moss, near Huddersfield, will be opened during 1951 and will give a good service in Blackpool, Blackburn and Preston. In Barrow-in-Furness, Kendal, Lancaster, Morecambe and Ulverston, the Corporation considers that a fair service will be given to viewers who are favourably situated for receiving the television wavelength.

Sir I. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposed transmitter is on the other side of the Pennines and that it is very doubtful whether these waves will cross that range; and can he tell the House whether the distribution of television and the methods of financing it are subjects for the consideration of the present committee of inquiry?

Mr. Paling: I think that the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary is another question. I realise that there will be some difficulty in places like Kendal, which are very mountainous, and that it may be difficult to get television in some of those places. However, we shall have to judge what can be done in the future after we have had some experience.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Can the Postmaster-General say what practical steps are being taken in the near future because the population is very large in that part of the world? There must be some method of overcoming the difficulty.

Mr. Paling: I have already said that 10 stations are contemplated to cover about 80 per cent. of the population.

Sir I. Fraser: Would it be open to hon. Members of this House or to citizens generally to bring their needs to the notice of the present committee of inquiry?

Mr. Paling: I would like to have notice of that question.

Tees-side

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Postmaster-General whether a satisfactory and regular television service for Tees-side will be provided by the proposed television stations at Holme Moss and Newcastle-on-Tyne.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: The B.B.C. expects the proposed station near Newcastle-on-Tyne to provide a satisfactory and regular television service for Tees-side.

Mr. Chetwynd: Pending the establishment of this station, which is some way ahead, could the Postmaster-General say what results are likely to come from the Holme Moss station on Tees-side?

Mr. Paling: I do not think anybody could say with any certainty until we have had some actual experience about it.

Alexandra Palace (Range)

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Postmaster-General what steps are being taken with a view to increasing the range of television from the Alexandra Palace beyond the present range of 35 miles.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: The B.B.C. does not consider it practicable to increase the range of its present television transmitter at Alexandra Palace. The existing range is not limited to 35 miles; it varies in different directions.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Postal Services, Leicester

Mr. Janner: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that letters posted at the General Post Office in Leicester at 6 p.m. showing the 7.30 p.m. postmark at Leicester do not reach Bacup in Lancashire for two days, despite the fact that they arrived by the first post the following morning for a couple of months after a complaint last June to the right hon. Gentleman by the Member of Parliament for the West Leicester Division; and whether he will take' steps to ensure that business is not obstructed through delay in the postal services.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Letters for Bacup posted at the General Post Office in Leicester up to 7.30 p.m. on weekdays should be delivered by first post on the following weekday. Unfortunately, failures have occurred, and I much regret the inconvenience and annoyance occasioned to both the sender and the recipient of the letters which have suffered delay. There has been a further review of the circulation arrangements for correspondence from Leicester to Bacup, and I trust there will be no further cause for complaint.

Mr, Janner: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, in view of the fact that, although my right hon. Friend successfully attended to this particular matter in June, the difficulties recurred in September, may I ask would he be good enough to consider sending these parcels by the line which goes direct from Leicester to Bury instead of passing them through Crewe, where there are such considerable difficulties?

Mr. Paling: I have said that the matter is being attended to, and I think that is one of the things being considered.

Mr. Erroll: As the matter is being attended to, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the exhortatory circular issued to all employees in post offices has anything to do with it?

Stamps (New Issues)

Dr. Segal: asked the Postmaster-General how far new issues of postage stamps are contemplated for 1950.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I have no special issue of stamps in 1950 under consideration at present.

Dr. Segal: Would it not be a graceful act to commemorate the forthcoming State visit of the French President by the issue of a special stamp as was done by the French Government on the occasion of the last Royal visit to the French capital?

Mr. Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the possibility of a commemorative issue of stamps on the occasion of the Festival of Britain in 1951?

Mr. Paling: We have these things in mind.

Brigadier Medlicott: Regarding future issues, would my right hon. Friend consider arranging for one artist to do the whole series of stamps instead of giving the individual stamps to different artists and thus producing a rather curious assortment of designs?

Mr. Paling: That might possibly create more trouble still.

Staff Associations (Recognition)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. ERIC FLETCHER: 4. To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has now completed his review of the basis on which recognition is given by the Post Office to new staff associations.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, why Question No. 4 is in Order when a question which I tried to put down in almost exactly the same terms was refused on the ground that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) had given notice that he was raising this matter on the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: It is quite in Order; I do not know why it should not be. I cannot examine every Question beforehand. When a question is put to me at short notice, I cannot be expected to give an answer without knowing all the facts.

Major Guy Lloyd: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. There are a large number of hon. Members in this House, certainly on this side, whose constituents are very actively concerned and anxious about this matter, and apparently

we are not allowed to ask Questions about it because the matter has been raised on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: That cannot be so. Because a matter has been raised on the Adjournment, that is no reason for stopping a Question. If notice has been given to raise the matter on the Adjournment, then a Question cannot be asked. I would stop supplementaries on that ground. Why this Question got on the Order Paper, presumably before the matter was raised on the Adjournment, I do not know.

Mr. Marlowe: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that a most difficult position is now arising, in that a written answer will be given, and further questions will be precluded because the Question will have been answered? It will not now be possible to put down further Questions.

Mr. Speaker: I should have been very much obliged if I had been given notice of this. This Question has been on the Order Paper for some time, and this is the first time I have heard about it. I really cannot answer these questions at short notice. I do my best if I have notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Installations (Use)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Postmaster-General how many telephones for which a rental is paid are not in actual use; how many telephone subscribers there are who, for calls made, pay less than £1, £3, £5 per annum, respectively; and whether any better use of existing installations can be made.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I regret that the information asked for is not readily available. Experience, however, shows that the payment made for calls from a particular telephone is not a reliable measure of the usefulness of the telephone. Many lines are heavily used for incoming calls.

Mr. Haire: While appreciating the point which my right hon. Friend makes about incoming calls, may I ask whether some of these installations could be called in, after due notice, of course, and used by the half million applicants who have been waiting a long time? Is it not a

fact that some of these telephones are completely forgotten?

Mr. Paling: If we attempt to do that I can see a lot of difficulties arising.

Wycombe

Mr. Haire: asked the Postmaster-General the number of telephones supplied in the Wycombe area since the end of the war for domestic, business and agricultural purposes; the number of applications still on the waiting list; and the present supply position.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Two thousand eight hundred and thirty-five new telephones have been installed. Details for the whole period since the end of the war are not available, but during the last two years about 69 per cent. have been for business purposes, including 9 per cent. for farmers. One thousand three hundred and thirty-five applications are on the waiting list; in recent months supply has just about kept pace with the rate of new applications.

Mr. Haire: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the service that has been given in the last two years, may I ask whether he is aware that quite a number of people are still waiting, and will he do something to expedite the matter?

Mr. Paling: Yes, I am quite aware of that and we are doing all we can in the circumstances.

Dialling Delays

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the delay in obtaining a reply when dialling O and TEL; and what measures he proposes to take with a view to remedying this grievance.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I regret that it has not been possible recently to avoid delay on these services. This has been largely due to continued shortage of operators, coupled with rapid turnover in the depleted staff and heavy sick leave. I can assure the hon. Member that no effort is being spared to overcome present difficulties and to ensure satisfactory service.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is the Minister aware that the public are very long suffering and patient? Will he really do all he possibly can to expedite this service?

Mr. Paling: Yes, Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Does the Minister appreciate the wear and tear on both shoe leather and temper which the unfortunate public suffer as a result of these delays, and will he not do something, as my hon. Friend has asked, to safeguard both?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Requisitioned Premises, Marylebone

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for Air, in view of the fact that No. 77, Hallam Street, W.1, is now no longer used by his Department, if he will take steps to have this property derequisitioned in consideration of the urgent need for housing accommodation in St. Marylebone.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): These premises are being used by my Department. They house the main London Centre for recruiting and training the Volunteer Reserve.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable indignation in my constituency at the fact that these premises appear to be empty, in view of the very grave shortages in St. Marylebone? My constituents feel that these premises ought to be made available for housing and certainly ought not to be left empty.

Mr. de Freitas: They were unoccupied for a short time while they were being redecorated and refurnished. There will very soon be an opening ceremony to which the hon. Gentleman will be invited.

Mr. Platts-Mills: May I call attention to the fact that in that constituency there are a great number of enormous houses either empty or only partly used, which the Tory council has sedulously refrained from requisitioning?

Houses, Lichfield

Mr. Cecil Poole: asked the Secretary of State for Air why his Department are seeking possession orders for Air Ministry houses at Curborough Road, Lichfield; for what purposes they propose to use them; and what steps are being taken to provide alternative accommodation for the displaced tenants.

Mr. de Freitas: The houses are required for Air Ministry employees in the Lichfield area. The present tenants left the service of the Air Ministry between two and four years ago. It is not my Department's responsibility to provide accommodation for these former employees but the fullest consideration is given to each case before a possession order is sought.

Mr. Poole: Will the Minister say whether he now proposes to use these houses, when he obtains possession of them, for further housing of Air Ministry employees? Secondly, can he say why his Department take proceedings against people who have been in residence for four years, and threaten to evict them in preference to people who have only recently taken up occupation?

Mr. de Freitas: When these tenants got these houses they signed a written undertaking that they would leave them when they left Air Ministry employment. We have been most considerate over these years, and we now feel that some consideration is due to our own employees who are still with us and who; need these quarters.

Roads, Market Stainton (Closing)

Commander Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Air why large notice boards, inscribed "Air Ministry, Road Closed under Defence Regulation (1939) No. 16," have recently been erected on roads in the vicinity of Market Stainton, Lincolnshire, as all bombs have been removed from the verges of these roads for 10 months; how local farmers and farmworkers in the area are to carry out their work if the regulation is enforced; and how many prosecutions there have been in the last six months.

Mr. de Freitas: These notice boards have been put up to safeguard the legal position of the Air Ministry until it is possible formally to revoke the closure orders made under the Defence Regulation. The orders will not be enforced except in the case of one road where it is necessary for the safety of the public. There have been no prosecutions for infringement in the last six months.

Commander Maitland: Is it not nonsense that a legal technicality of this


kind should be allowed to involve public expense in putting up these new notice boards? Not only that, but people who do not realise that they will not be prosecuted are deflected a considerable distance out of their way. Should not this nonsense be cleared up at once?

Mr. de Freitas: The orders will be revoked as soon as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport agrees that the roads are fit for use. Meanwhile, it is most important that the legal rights and liabilities attaching to these roads should be made quite clear.

Mr. Turton: Why is there this long delay in releasing these highways which have been stopped up, when there are no bombs in the neighbourhood of the road?

Mr. de Freitas: The roads have to be repaired before they are handed back to general public use.

Commander Maitland: As these roads are perfectly safe, could not the Air Ministry take out an ordinary insurance policy to protect themselves, and allow the public to use the roads?

Mr. de Freitas: I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that what we have done is in the best interests of his constituents and my Department.

Flying Instructors

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air what pay and allowances are paid to flying instructors at the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve schools.

Mr. de Freitas: Flying instructors are employed and paid by the civil companies which operate the reserve schools under contract with the Air Ministry.

Air-Commodore Harvey: How can the Under-Secretary try to get out of it like that when the salaries are determined by his Ministry? Is he aware that the salary paid is £100 a year below that paid before the war and £150 a year below that paid by the Ministry of Civil Aviation? Will he look into this matter, because there is considerable hardship?

Mr. de Freitas: I am not aware of the first point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman made. As to the other points, I will certainly look into them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Airline Pilots

Air-Commodore: Harvey asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many airline pilots who were employed by either of the Corporations have been taken on to the staff of his Department during the past two years.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): Two, Sir.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Member consult his noble Friend and see whether he cannot do something more for these men who are employed by the Corporations so that a fair ratio get executive jobs in the Ministry instead of the jobs going to people outside?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir; most certainly. My noble Friend has already had discussions with B.A.L.P.A.—the pilots' trade union—and with G.A.P.A.N.—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is that?"] It is the Guild of Air Pilots and Navigators. It must be remembered that the salary and pension of pilots take consideration of the fact that their life as pilots is a comparatively short one.

Aberdeen Flying Schools, Limited

Mr. Spence: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is aware that Aberdeen Flying Schools, Limited, were obliged to cease instruction on 2nd September, 1939; and why they have not been allowed to resume in view of the fact that it is four-and-a-half years since the end of hostilities.

Mr. Lindgren: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to his Question on 16th November. That reply applies equally to the activities of Aberdeen Flying Schools, Limited.

Mr. Spence: Arising out of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply and his previous answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that when this school was requisitioned both the buildings and trading rights were taken over? So far, only the buildings have been derequisitioned and not the rights.

Mr. Lindgren: On the de-requisitioning of the property the rights of those owning both the flying school and the club were freed for them to operate if they so desired.

Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower: Does that mean that the companies may resume as they were on 2nd December, 1939, when they were requisitioned?

Mr. Lindgren: I should require notice before I answered that question in full detail but, so far as my Ministry is concerned, the buildings were de-requisitioned and the opportunity given to the owner immediately to recommence the activities of a flying club, for social activities and of a flying school for instruction and flying.

Mr. Gandar Dower: Arising out of that answer, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment on Monday night.

Mr. Spence: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what repairs in respect of dilapidations have been carried out on the hangars belonging to Aberdeen Flying Schools, Limited, at Dyce Airport.

Mr. Lindgren: I am informed that such repairs have been carried out by the Aberdeen Flying Schools, Limited, after the property was de-requisitioned in August, 1946. I suggest, therefore, that the hon. Member should seek the information from them.

Mr. Spence: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that these buildings were occupied by the Ministry for some eight years, and they could surely have been repaired when they were handed back in August, 1946. Will not the Minister now see that some settlement is arrived at with the owners?

Mr. Liudgren: The requisitioning was by the Air Ministry and the buildings were in the use of the Air Ministry during the war. They were handed back to the operator at his request in order that he could more quickly resume his activities but, unfortunately, he has not done so. In conclusion, I should like to say that it takes two to make an agreement.

Flying Clubs (Tuition Fees)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil

Aviation what steps he is prepared to take to reduce the cost of flying tuition particularly in the case of those clubs which use nationalised airfields.

Mr. Lindgren: My noble Friend has no power to intervene in the matter of charges made by private organisations for flying tuition.

Mr. Rankin: Could my hon. Friend ask his noble Friend to consider the cases of these people who desire to learn to fly? Could he not bring his influence to bear in order to reduce the charges which today are extortionate?

Mr. Lindgren: The charges are the responsibility of those who carry out the flying instruction and not of my Ministry.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is not one of the reasons for heavy charges the high Petrol Duty? Is it not within the function of the Government to alter that?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir; it is within the functions of the Government and, perhaps, a Question could be put to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury:

Mr. Marlowe: As the hon. Gentleman says that his noble Friend has no power to intervene in this matter, will he also suggest to his right hon. Friend the noble Lord that he has no right to intervene in the findings of independent tribunals?

Accident Inquiry Report (Minister's Comments)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement on the Report by Mr. T. P. McDonald, K.C., on the Prestwick air disaster last October and the Minister of Civil Aviation's observations on this Report and the subsequent comments of the President of the Court.

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. I am grateful to the hon. Member for providing this opportunity. I have no general comment to make on the Report by Mr. T. P. McDonald, K.C., beyond the statement already published by my noble Friend, but he is particularly concerned with Mr. McDonald's charge in the published correspondence that my noble Friend seeks to attach the blame for the disaster to the dead pilot. My noble Friend


pointed out, in a telegram which Mr. McDonald received before publishing the correspondence, that he could in no way accept this allegation, and my noble Friend wishes to express his regret that this telegram was not included in the published correspondence. My noble Friend is well aware that the circumstances of the accident render it impossible to arrive at a definite conclusion as to the cause, and that such matters as turbulence and engine trouble, referred to in paragraphs 153 and 154 of the Report, cannot be ruled out. My noble Friend is satisfied, from a full consideration of the evidence, that no member of the staff of the Air Traffic Control or Meteorological Services bears any responsibility for the accident. He is anxious that none of them should go through life with such a shadow resting upon them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the point of having an impartial judicial inquiry at all if, simultaneously with the publication of the Report, Ministers issue their own comments based, at best, on facts not before the court, and, at worst, on no facts at all?

Mr. Lindgren: This is not a court of law but a court of inquiry. After a court of inquiry has submitted its report to the Minister, surely the Minister is permitted to dissociate himself, in the protection of his staff, from one of the findings of the report?

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether any information was available to the Minister which was not available to the court of inquiry which he himself set up, and if there was such information, can he tell us what it was?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. It was on the evidence which was before the inquiry—it is a matter of opinion on that evidence.

Mr. Eden: Are we to understand that the Minister sets up a court of inquiry, before which evidence is made available, that it makes its report and the Minister, on the same evidence, takes a contrary view? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Then, why have the farce of an inquiry at all?

Mr. Lindgren: I should have thought that it is common procedure for an

inquiry to be held and for the Minister setting up such an inquiry to accept or reject the findings.

Mr. Rankin: In the course of his comments on the Report, the Minister of Civil Aviation made the remark that he was publishing the statement, to which my hon. Friend has made reference, "in order to protect the civil servants concerned." Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the desire to protect civil servants does not take precedence over ensuring the safety of those who travel in aircraft?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir—absolutely. All the findings of this inquiry, and any other inquiry, are given due weight and consideration and implemented according to whether they are appropriate or not.

Mr. Wyatt: On a point of Order. Can. you, Mr. Speaker, for the guidance of Members in general in putting Private Notice Questions, say what was the definition of urgency which governed the acceptance of this Question?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. The hon. Member must not challenge my decision. As a matter or fact, I considered that there was a considerable amount of urgency, and that is why I allowed the Question.

Mr. Wyatt: I am very sorry if I seemed to be challenging your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I was merely asking the question for information.

Mr. Speaker: Reasons why I do or do not accept Questions are not in Order.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House why the Minister of Civil Aviation, when he dissented from the Report, said he did not propose to give his reasons? Is it not very undesirable that the Minister should dissent without giving specific reasons?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. He has given his decisions after considering the facts—he says so.

Mr. Eden: There have, I think, been circumstances in which Ministers have disagreed with the reports of committees they have set up, but have there been any cases where, a report having been submitted, the Minister has not come down to the House, having studied the


report, and given his reasons and explanations? [HON.MEMBERS: "Answer."] May I ask the Prime Minister if he can recall any such precedent, because I can recall none?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the last thing people in Prestwick want is that this should be made a party matter? Is he aware that this accident took place in October, that five months passed before the commission reported, and that another five months passed before the Report was laid before the House? Will he do something to accelerate the reports of these commissions? Will he also assure us that every step is now being taken at Prestwick to carry out the recommendations and ensure that Prestwick is made safer?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. All the recommendations of the Report, and others arising subsequent to the inquiry, have been fully investigated and are being implemented where appropriate. On the legal side of the inquiry, surely there would have been interference by the Minister if, in fact, he had interfered with its progress. He appointed the inquiry, and the lawyer took a very long time to consider the Report. The inquiry was held in February, and it was not until July that the gentleman in charge of the inquiry presented his Report. There had to be discussions with the Dutch Government, which took a certain amount of time due to the questions of translation and so on which arose. Everything possible was done with the utmost speed after receipt of the Report by the Minister.

Sir T. Moore: How can the Government expect distinguished and erudite civilians to preside over such inquiries in the future, if the Minister responsible immediately disregards the findings?

Mr. Lindgren: May I make it clear that there is no disregarding of the findings? All that has happened is that because civil servants are concerned—it is not the usual custom for them to defend themselves—the responsible Minister has stated that in his opinion no blame attaches to them.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that civil servants had a right to defend themselves at the inquiry? Are we to take it, in view of the fact that we have already discussed another important inquiry, that it is the intention or desire of the Minister who appoints these inquiries that they should report according to his views and desires, or is the inquiry to be completely independent of the Minister, or the Governor, as the case may be?

Mr. Lindgren: I think I have made it perfectly clear that the inquiry was independent. There was no interference in any shape or form. All that has happened is that, when the President of the Court presented his Report to the Minister, the Minister, in considering the Report, dissented from the implications of one of the findings.

Mr. Marlowe: As the Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Minister and the tribunal relied on the same evidence, can he state the grounds on which the Minister, who did not hear the witnesses, considered himself in a better position to weigh up the evidence than the tribunal, which did hear the evidence.

Mr. Lindgren: Surely the Minister is entitled to an opinion.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Would my hon. Friend agree that if any precedent as to repudiation of, or disagreement with, the findings of any committee or commission were necessary, such a precedent could be found in the repeated refusals of successive Coalition and Conservative Governments to act on the findings of committees and commissions of inquiry into the nationalisation of the mining industry?

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is it not desirable that all inquiries into civil air accidents should be completely divorced from the Ministry of Civil Aviation, bearing in mind that the Ministry's own staff might well be involved and implicated, thus laying the Minister open to serious difficulties with a foreign Power, which might make a claim when he has dissented from the opinion of an inquiry?

Mr. Lindgren: That is what has happened in this case. The court of inquiry which was set up by the Minister was


entirely outside the Ministry. On the findings the Minister has made some observations.

Mr. Swingler: Will not my hon. Friend satisfy the House by undertaking to make another statement, setting out the reasons why the Minister dissents from the findings of the court of inquiry?

Mr. Lindgren: I am prepared to put that point to my noble Friend; no doubt he will take it fully into consideration.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Is not a matter of considerable urgency involved here? The Report of the impartial inquiry discloses a state of considerable inefficiency, which the Minister denies exists. In those circumstances, surely it is essential, in the interests of public safety, that the Parliamentary Secretary should come to the House again and disclose in full detail—not by question and answer—in a Debate the grounds for that decision and the action which it is proposed to take.

Mr. Lindgren: I regret that such an irresponsible observation should have been made by the hon. Member, who has not even read the report. If he will do so he will see that no such allegations of inefficiency are made against anybody.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In view of the grave nature of this matter, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

OVERSEAS BROADCASTS

Major Turton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what advice he has given to the B.B.C. regarding the foreign countries to which broadcasts should be made; and whether he will discontinue the recently-inaugurated broadcasts to Israel in favour of broadcasts to the Baltic States.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): In accordance with the terms of the B.B.C.'s Licence and Agreement, my right hon. Friend has prescribed to the Corporation the countries to which overseas broadcasts are directed and the languages in which these broadcasts are made. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No. Sir."

Major Beamish: Is it really more important to spend the taxpayers' money on broadcasting to Israel, a country of less than one million inhabitants, which is wide open to the Western world, than to broadcast to the three Baltic States, which are still recognised sub judice by His Majesty's Government and which are shut off completely from truth and Western civilisation?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not think these broadcasts are so easily interchangeable. I think the broadcasts to Israel have justified themselves and are being successful. Broadcasting to the Baltic countries raises a number of difficult technical questions, since the broadcast cannot be fitted on the relevant network easily.

Mr. Haire: Is my hon. Friend advising the B.B.C. to cut down the amount of time devoted to certain Western countries—for example, France—and to increase the amount of time devoted to Eastern Europe and Israel?

Mr. Mayhew: For the reasons I have given it is not easy to switch a broadcast from one country to another—for technical reasons—but I will certainly look into it.

Mr. Eden: While we understand the difficulties of switching—and may I say we welcome these broadcasts and think they do good?—could the Minister let us have in the Library or in some other way a list of the countries to which these broadcasts are now made and the times, which are employed?

Mr. Mayhew: If the information is not already available in the Library, I will certainly see that it is made available.

GREECE (BRITISH SUBJECT, SENTENCE)

Mr. Lester Hutchinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Miss Krene Pavlides, a British subject, who was sentenced to death by a military court in Athens on 5th March, 1949, for the alleged distribution of leaflets, and whose sentence has since been commuted to life imprisonment, is now to be transported to a prison on one of the Aegean Islands; and if he will now, in view of Miss Pavlides citizenship, her youth, and the nature of the


alleged offence, press the Greek Government energetically to repatriate her to her home in Cyprus.

Mr. Mayhew: I have no information to suggest that there is any intention of moving Miss Pavlides to an Aegean island. His Majesty's Government would, however, welcome a decision by the Greek authorities to deport her to her home in Cyprus, and representations in this sense have already been made to the Greek Government.

Mr. Hutchinson: While thanking my hon. Friend for his statement, which I am quite sure will bring hope to this girl's family, may I ask will he not take into consideration the long time this girl has spent in prison since he first promised to intervene and will he make most energetic representations that she should be deported home at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Mayhew: I think my answer shows that we are taking suitable action already.

ITALIAN SOMALILAND (BRITISH ADMINISTRATION)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now institute an inquiry into the origin of the accusations made against British Administration officials in Italian Somaliland.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister kindly explain to me how it is that, while his right hon. Friend says he would like to make an inquiry into how my friends managed to start these reports going, when he receives an invitation to make an inquiry into how my friends started the reports the answer is, "No, Sir." What does it mean?

Mr. Mayhew: That the investigation is not worth making.

Mr. Gallacher: Last week the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend said he would like an opportunity to make such an inquiry. Now I give him the opportunity of instituting an inquiry. What is he afraid of?

An Hon. Member: Your friends.

GERMANY (IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has returned to the proposal of the Chancellor of the West German Federal Republic that French, American and other foreign private investors should be permitted to make investments in the Ruhr iron and steel industry.

Mr. Mayhew: No formal proposal for the investment of foreign capital in the Ruhr iron and steel industry has been put to His Majesty's Government. The Federal Chancellor, Dr. Adenauer, has, however, publicly declared his Government's readiness to consider, amongst other proposals, the participation of foreign capital in the Ruhr as a means of satisfying Allied security requirements. Dr. Adenauer has been advised that the Allied Governments are not prepared to pursue this proposal further.

Mr. Warbey: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is conscious of the danger to democracy and peace of the re-establishment of privately owned steel cartels in Germany, even if they should go under the blessed name of re-integration?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. We want to encourage new investment in Germany, including foreign investment, but it must, of course, be on a fair and democratic basis.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Is the influence of the Foreign Secretary with the Western German Government increased or diminished by the fact that Mr. Morgan Phillips is negotiating with the German Opposition?

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Could my hon. Friend say whether there is any machinery available whereby the trade unions and the workers can be adequately consulted in connection with such a development as that he has envisaged?

Mr. Mayhew: I am not sure how our powers would stand under the Occupation Statute, but I think that would be a matter for the new German Government.

Mr. Tiffany: Is not nationalisation a more democratic form of industrialisation?

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken to break up the German steel trust, Vereinigte Stahlwerke, in accordance with the decartellisation ordinance.

Mr. Mayhew: It is scheduled for liquidation under Law 75. The steel producing units, with the exception of two plants, have been severed from the parent concern. German trustees have been appointed to plan the reorganisation of the steel and colliery holdings of the concern. The subsidiaries, other than coal and steel, will be the subject of separate liquidation.

Mr. Warbey: Can my hon. Friend say, then, how it was possible for the West German Chancellor to make a proposal for the extension of the share capital of Vereinigte Stahlwerke, and to invite foreign participation in the capital of that concern?

Mr. Mayhew: I can only say that it is the firm intention of the High Commission to proceed with the liquidation of this concern.

U.N.O. SECURITY COUNCIL (CZECHOSLOVAKIA)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give particulars of the convention which made it necessary for the United Kingdom to vote for the election of Czechoslovakia to the Security Council.

Mr. Mayhew: The convention is in the nature of a working arrangement which has developed from the practice of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Under this arrangement one of the six non-permanent seats on the Security Council has always gone to the British Commonwealth, one to Western Europe, two to Latin America, one to the Middle East and one to Eastern Europe. It has also come to be generally accepted that the candidate supported by these groups of nations should receive general support.

Mr. Keeling: As I understand that this convention was made several years ago under very different conditions, would the Government consider terminating or amending it?

Mr. Mayhew: There was no specific time limit to the convention when it was

made. It is a working arrangement which has grown up. In answer to the last part of the supplementary question, I think there are some advantages in this working arrangement by which a member of the Commonwealth has always been a non-permanent member of the Security Council. It has advantages. It prevents bitterness and deadlocks sometimes in these elections.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Is my hon. Friend aware that the attitude of the Foreign Secretary in this matter was obviously fair and just and would be opposed only by those whose minds were clouded with hate and suspicion?

Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend will be glad of such a tribute from such a source.

Mr. Eden: I do not think he will.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the action of the British Government in this regard exercised a most depressing effect upon the people of Czechoslovakia, and that what the British Government did was inevitably taken as endorsing the Soviet ridden régime in Czechoslovakia?

Mr. Mayhew: There was no new departure whatever in this action of ours. The Czechoslovak people have certainly misunderstood our attitude if that is the deduction they have drawn.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the ganging up against Czechoslovakia at the United Nations was similar to the unscrupulous ganging up at Strasbourg against the Patronage Secretary?

Mr. H. Strauss: Does the Under-Secretary of State recall that at the time of the coup d'état in Czechoslovakia the National Council of Labour said that anybody who attempted to condone that crime showed himself entirely false to all ideas of democracy?"

Mr. Mayhew: If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks we are condoning the Czechoslovak régime by the action we have taken he is wilfully misunderstanding our position.

BRITISH HONDURAS (DOLLAR)

Major Ramsay: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the benefits he expects British Honduras to


experience as a result of His Majesty's Government's policy not to devalue the British Honduras dollar.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): The British Honduras dollar has been linked by law with the U.S. dollar since 1894. Largely because so much of the Colony's imports (at present about 70 per cent.) come from American account countries, no change was made in this position last September.

Major Ramsay: Is not the Under-Secretary of State aware that unemployment in British Honduras is on the increase, and that development such as is envisaged in the Evans Report will not have a chance of success unless some provision is made for this arrangement?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I understand that on the whole this decision has received a welcome in British Honduras.

Major Ramsay: As the facts that the Under-Secretary of State and I have appear to differ very widely, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter again as soon as possible on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Wage Rates

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the average wage of a workman, over the age of

—
August, 1938
August, 1946
August, 1949


Skilled Tradesmen
75 cents-$1· 40
$5·00-$6·20
$6·20-$8·00


Skilled Workers
70 cents-$1·00
$4·50-$5·00
$5·60-$7·20


Ordinary Workers
60 cents-75 cents
$4·20-$4·50
$4·80-$5·80


Manual Workers
40 cents-80 cents
$3·20-$3·60
$3·55-$4·05

The general retail price index, taking 1939 prices as 100, was 586 for the quarter ending September, 1949. Figures for 1946 are not available. It will be seen that, except for some of the highest paid workers, wage rates have risen by a higher percentage than the cost of living as represented by the general retail price index.

21 years, in Hong Kong in August, 1938, in August, 1946 and in August, 1949, respectively; and how far increases in wage rates have kept up with increases in the cost of living.

Mr. Rees-Williams: As there are a number of figures in the reply, I will with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend emphasise to the Administration in Hong Kong that because of the wide disparity between increases in wage rates and increases in the cost of living they should not put down demands for wage increases as Communist propaganda, and that the best way to meet Communist propaganda is to provide decent living conditions for the people?

Mr. Rees-Williams: As my hon. Friend will see when he reads my answer, in fact wage rates have risen by a higher percentage than the cost of living, so his suggestion to me does not arise.

Mr. Harrison: Is my hon. Friend aware that wage rates and general working conditions in Hong Kong are better than they are in almost any other part of the Far East?

Following is the reply:

The daily wage rates for the four main categories of worker varied at the times in question between the approximate limits shown in the following table. ($1 Hong Kong = ls. 3d. Sterling.)

Rent Control

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken by the Government of Hong Kong to control rents and to prevent the charging of key money.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Rents in Hong Kong are controlled by legislation which


applies, with certain minor exceptions, to all premises built before 1945. The ordinance makes it an offence to demand any consideration whatsoever for the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

Detainees

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how the selection boards choose detenus in Malaya and Singapore for re-education at the Academy of Peace and Tranquillity; whether the detenus so chosen are allowed to refuse to attend; and what is the course of study provided at this academy.

Sir T. Moore: In order that we may understand the reply to this Question can we know what is meant by "detenus "? I cannot find it in any dictionary.

Mr. Driberg: Illiterate.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am not using the word, and so, perhaps, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be satisfied with my reply.
Detainees are selected after personal interview by a committee, which includes unofficials, on the recommendation of the police, the superintendents of detention camps, and Committees of Review. Only those willing to attend are selected. The programme includes vocational training, instruction in manual crafts and agriculture, primary education in the detainees' own tongue, and in Malay or English. Lectures will be given by distinguished visitors. Detainees will manage their own camp organisations.

Mr. Piratin: Somehow the Under-Secretary of State has not given the House the information required, namely, what particular subjects are taught to these persons in the faculty of peace and tranquillity? If he knows the answer to that it will be very useful for all kinds of countries in the world to have that answer. Can the hon. Gentleman say, at the same time, if those persons are being taught to accept imperialist domination as a form of peace and tranquillity?

Mr. Rees-Williams: No information of the Russian State is given, so the last

part of the supplementary question does not arise. As to the other part, I have already given the House, I think, the programme which it is intended should fit these people into a happy, peaceful and prosperous life in the community.

Mr. Gallacher: For what sort of wages?

Teachers' Salaries 36. Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what provisions there are in the scales of non-European Malayan teachers' salaries for extra payments for special qualifications.

Mr. Rees-Williams: For some categories of teachers there is provision within the salary scales for extra payments according to qualifications. Most teachers, however, enter different salary scales according to their qualifications.

Mr. Piratin: Can the Under-Secretary tell us the relative salaries of European and Malayan teachers?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That is a different question altogether.

CYPRUS (AUDITOR'S REPORT)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement concerning the financial irregularities and thefts revealed in the report of the principal auditor of the accounts of Cyprus during 1948.

Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend has now received the Auditor's Report and the Governor's comments, and he is satisfied that, wherever necessary, police investigations have been instituted, or disciplinary action taken, and measures put in hand for tightening up the application of regulations.

Mr. Piratin: Is it possible for the House to have the report of that inquiry circulated, or placed in the Library? Will the hon. Gentleman reconcile, now or at some other time, the figure he gave when I last asked a question about this—that the total losses were only in the region of £800—with the official report figure of £18,739?

Mr. Rees-Williams: The report has already been published in Cyprus and I am quite sure it could easily be made


available in the Library, if so desired. The amount of difference was £800 out of a total of £12 million, and the £800 largely consisted of two thefts, so I think the figure I gave was quite correct.

Mr. Piratin: The official report definitely refers to £18,739. Would the hon. Gentleman not look into the matter again, to see if, perhaps, someone is "pulling a fast one"?

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Roads

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the roads in Kenya will be brought up to the standard of the roads in Uganda.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Comparisons are difficult to make but in Kenya there are greater distances in relation to population, less favourable soil conditions, heavier traffic, and greater expense involved in building and maintaining roads. Larger sums have, however, been allotted to road development in the Kenya development plan.

Mr. Erroll: In view of the urgent need in Kenya for improved roads will the Under-Secretary of State urge the Governor to press on rapidly with better road construction?

Mr. Rees-Williams: There is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I think, a road authority committee appointed by the Governor to go into this whole question.

Huts, Ndeiya Reserve

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what alternative accommodation and subsistence provision have been offered by the Kenya Government to the people rendered homeless by official action in burning three huts in the Ndeiya Reserve.

Mr. Rees-Williams: My right hon. Friend has asked the Governor for information and will write to my hon. Friend when it is received.

Mr. Skinnard: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, together with the Government of Kenya, the practice which

obtains in some other Colonies of providing suitable alternative accommodation before having the order for destruction carried out?

Mr. Rees-Williams: We have not heard of any destruction at all. This was the first information that came to us on the subject.

Arrests

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans have been arrested as the result of the passing by the Kenya Legislature of the measure to control the voluntarily unemployed; and what action has been taken by the courts in these cases.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The Bill was passed by the Legislative Council on 19th August. I am not aware of any action taken under the Ordinance.

Public Meetings (Regulations)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the regulations governing the meetings of Africans in Kenya to discuss their own racial problems; and why special difficulties have occurred in the Fort Hall and Nyeri Districts recently leading to a prohibition of such meetings.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Public assemblies in Kenya are regulated under Section 30 of the Police Ordinance of 1948, which is of general application. My right hon. Friend is not aware that any special difficulties have occurred recently, but he is asking the Governor for information and will write to my hon. Friend when he receives it.

Mr. Skinnard: In view of the urgent necessity of setting up suitable local administrations in which the African population are required to participate, would not my hon. Friend agree that the absolute banning of African peoples from discussing local affairs is regrettable?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Well, it does not take place. The regulations in Kenya are on the same lines as in this country, and the African member, Mr. Mathu, whom my hon. Friend knows, expressed appreciation when this Ordinance went through.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA

Franchise Inquiry

33 and 34. Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he is aware that a candidate for election to the Legislative Council of British Guiana must have an annual income of £250 or possess property value £208 in order to be eligible for nomination; and what steps he proposes to take to abolish these qualifications;
(2) if he is aware that a voter in the election of the Legislative Council of British Guiana must be literate and possess three acres of land or property of £31 5s. in value, or pay £10 rent, or Income Tax of £4 3s. 4d., or have an income of £25 per year; and what steps he proposes to take to make the franchise more democratic.

Mr. Rees-Williams: As the Governor has announced, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed to appoint a special Commission to visit British Guiana next year to make recommendations on the franchise, the composition of the Legislative Council, and related matters.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman think it would be better if the electors were illiterate?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am afraid the point of that question escapes me.

Mr. Wyatt: Could the Under-Secretary say whether there is any information in the possession of the Colonial Office to show that those people who own property vote more intelligently than those people who do not?

Mr. Gallacher: Look at the other side: that should show.

East Indians (Illiteracy)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the percentage of illiteracy amongst the East Indians in British Guiana; and what steps are being taken to deal with it.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The latest estimates put the figure at over 40 per cent. The Colony's ten-year development plan provides for the extension of primary education. An experimental literacy campaign was carried out in 1948, and is being continued this year.

Sugar Estates (Housing)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of employees on sugar estates in British Guiana are still housed in barrack lines; and what steps are being taker to rehouse them.

Mr. Rees-Williams: According to the latest figures available, some 6,000 families, of a total of some 76,000 residents on the estates, are still housed in ranges. The Colony's ten-year development plan provides for co-operation between Government and the sugar industry for their rehousing.

Mr. Hynd: If an increase in the price of sugar is to be allowed, could a proportion of that be allocated towards the housing of the workers?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That is a possibility, but I must point out that these 6,000 people are not workers on the estates. They are residents on the estates, not workers. Therefore, the Government feel that the primary responsibility for their rehousing rests on the Government there.

JAMAICA (RESERVOIR)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the original estimate for the construction of the Mona Dam in Jamaica; to what extent this estimate was exceeded by the time the dam was completed; how much has been spent in patching it up since its completion; and how much more expenditure he anticipates will be necessary before the dam will hold water permanently.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The original estimate and loan in 1942 was £382,000. In January, 1945, a second loan of £80,900 was made. Since the completion of the reservoir in August, 1946, drains have been put in to diminish the effects on the structure of leakage. I have no figures for the cost of works done after the building of the reservoir. It is not yet possible to say how much it will cost to make the reservoir permanently watertight.

Mr. Gammans: Is it not a fact that this reservoir has never held water at all, and shows no sign whatever of being likely to hold water?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Well, I believe it did not hold water, very securely.

Mr. Driberg: Is it not the case that no public project in Jamaica will hold water until the people there elect a Socialist Government?

ENUGU COLLIERY, NIGERIA (DISTURBANCE)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the composition of the commission appointed by Sir John MacPherson to inquire into the shooting of the strikers at the Iva Valley Mine, Enugu, Nigeria; and how many of the miners' representatives are on the commission.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The composition of the commission is not yet decided, but the Governor will appoint it at the earliest possible date in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of this shocking affair of the shooting down of 40 miners, will the Under-Secretary insist that a British working miner and a Nigerian miner be taken on to the commission, as otherwise it will just be a whitewashing commission? Will he consider that?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I cannot add anything to the answer I have already given. The whole matter is now being considered.

Mr. Gallacher: But is it not of the greatest importance in a situation of this kind, when there has been such a shocking business, that utmost confidence should rest in the commission; and would it not create the greatest confidence to have a British working miner and a Nigerian miner on the commission? Why should they not be on the commission?

Mr. Piratin: Answer.

Mr. Keeling: asked' the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the disturbances at the Enugu Colliery, Nigeria.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the disturbances near Enugu. Nigeria, which resulted in the

death of 18 miners; and what steps were taken to induce the crowd to disperse peaceably before opening fire on them.

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the riots in the Nigerian coalfields.

Mr. Rees-Williams: A "go-slow" movement recently began at the colliery, and on 16th November a "stay-in" strike developed and one act of sabotage was reported. Two days later the mine authorities decided, in the interests of public safety, to bring away the explosives from the mines. While a detachment of police were evacuating explosives from the Iva Valley mine they were surrounded by a large number of miners armed with crowbars, picks, matchets and spears, who rushed the police and attempted to disarm them and obtain possession of the explosives store. The officer in charge of the police endeavoured to reason with the miners without success. Despite repeated warnings, the situation became so dangerous that the police were compellted to open fire in self-defence. I greatly regret to say that the casualties are 18 persons killed and 31 injured, and I am sure the House will share this feeling.
The Governor has decided to appoint a commission at the earliest possible moment to carry out a full public inquiry into the recent labour troubles at the colliery and the events which followed. No further disturbances have occurred since 18 th November, and talks are proceeding with the trade union leaders and native authorities.

Mr. Keeling: Would the Under-Secretary agree that the pay, food and housing of these miners compares favourably—as several hon. Members of this House can testify from personal knowledge—with the conditions obtaining in any other industry in Nigeria?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I think that is perfectly true.

Mr. Driberg: Will the Under-Secretary bear in mind that it is only three weeks, today since the Secretary of State assured the House that he had recently addressed all colonial governors on the subject of using humane methods to disperse demonstrations, and that this was


"accepted colonial practice"; and will he investigate and find out why that was not done in this case?

Mr. Gallacher: Tonypandy again.

Mr. Gammans: Can the Under-Secretary say whether, as a result of this trouble, coal production has been impeded in any way; and if so, is it likely to affect the movement of the groundnuts still in West Africa?

Mr. John Paton: How many police are among the 18 killed, and how many among the injured?

Mr. Rees-Williams: No police are included in these figures.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Will my hon. Friend impress upon the Governor the importance of having some Africans on the commission of inquiry; and will he assure us that the report of this commission will be made available to the House in this country at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Gallacher: And we do not want African "stooges."

Mr. Rees-Williams: On all these matters my right hon. Friend is in communication with the Governor, and I can assure the House that when we get further information I shall take an opportunity of giving it to the House.

Mr. Warbey: How many of the police were killed or wounded?

Mr. Rees-Williams: None.

Mr. Gallacher: No injuries to the police!

Mr. Driberg: Will my hon. Friend take note of the opinion implied from the benches opposite, that the lives of mere African workers are of no consequence—[Interruption]—in comparison with the movement of groundnuts, and will he initiate a most rigorous investigation on a humane basis?

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is the hon. Gentleman to be allowed to make allegations that the lives of African workers are of no concern to hon. Members who sit on this side? We are just as much concerned as ever the hon. Gentleman has been.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can make these allegations, but he is entirely responsible for them, and I am sure the House would repudiate them.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of Order. May I—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] May I point out, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that what I have said was clearly implied in the callous supplementary question of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans).

ATOMIC ENERGY CO-OPERATION (TALKS)

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the result of the recent conversations between America, Canada and Britain over our co-operation in relation to atomic energy.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Exploratory talks on atomic energy cooperation between the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada began in Washington on 20th September. The first stage of these talks ended on 30th September. Good progress was registered and the results are now under consideration by the three Governments. The talks will be resumed in Washington on 28th November.

Mr. Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I was unable to hear the answer of the Prime Minister because certain hon. Members were talking, and as this is a Question of some importance, may I ask my supplementary question, which is this: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that both American and British scientists greatly regret that there has not been as much co-operation between America and ourselves during the last three years as there was during the war, and whether that fact has been put to the United States of America; and does the right hon. Gentleman feel that the matter is now proceeding satisfactorily?

The Prime Minister: I cannot say anything more until the conversations have been completed. The Government are satisfied with the progress made during the first stage.

EXPORT TRADE (DOLLAR MARKETS)

Mr. Tiffany: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the response so far made to his appeal for increased exports to the dollar area.

The Prime Minister: The country will be grateful to those firms who have already made strenuous efforts to expand their sales to dollar markets, and, while it is far too early to see results in the export figures, evidence continues to come in of many firms who are joining in the dollar drive. A great deal, however, remains to be done before we can afford to say that we are satisfied.

Mr. Tiffany: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the compliments which he paid to the workers and management of export manufacturing firms at the recent Lord Mayor's Banquet and to the Perkin Diesel Company are greatly appreciated and serve as a stimulus in the export drive?

Major Beamish: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what contribution has been made to the export drive by one of the biggest organisations in the country, the Co-operative Wholesale Society, of which the hon. Gentleman is a nominee?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must put that question down.

Mr. M. Philips Price: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in view of the amount of information that exists with our diplomatic and consular officials in the United States on the matter of our British exports to that country, that information is duly conveyed to exporters in this country, because the information is very important?

The Prime Minister: I think that information is given. If my hon. Friend has a question on that matter, perhaps he will put it to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ratio of dollar exports to the total exports has remained virtually unchanged for three and a half years, and since this is our most urgent commercial task at the present time, and since measures so far taken do not appear to be adequate, will he re-examine the matter to see if there are some fresh or even unorthodox methods which can be taken to increase this ratio?

Mr. Gandar Dower: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he is satisfied with

the increase in exports and if that gives him some hope of balancing the devaluation of the £?

LICENCES AND ALLOCATIONS (BASIC DATES)

Mr. Renton: asked the Prime Minister to what extent it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to rely upon dates in 1939 as the bases for licensing various activities or for allocating materials.

The Prime Minister: The Government's policy is, wherever possible, to move away from dates in 1939 as bases upon which to licence various activities or to allocate materials.

Mr. Renton: Would the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent the Government are in fact adhering to that policy which, being based on 1939 allocations, is often unrealistic and unfair, and how he expects our economy to expand if we are basing our plans for the future on what happened 10 years ago?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, if he reads my reply, will find that we are basing it on that. The point I have made is that we are steadily departing from that basis which was taken at the beginning of the war.

Mr. H. Strauss: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that another section of the Liberal Party has increased the gaiety of all English-speaking people by advocating a "more flexible yardstick "?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Western Union Defence

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Defence on what date the United Kingdom's contribution to Western Union defence was fixed as five to six divisions of troops and forty-five squadrons of jet-fighters; and what alterations to this programme have taken place since this date.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): It is contrary to the practice of the House to confirm or deny the accuracy of unofficial estimates and statements of this nature.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the fact that this information is not disclosed to the House, has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to statements on the authority of a serving American General, who is a Commander in the Carribbean, in the Year Book of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica"; and does his statement mean that General Sibert is guilty of a breach of official secrecy or is he merely indulging in flights of fancy?

Mr. Alexander: It is not in accordance with the practice of the House, as my hon. Friend will see on page 337 of Erskine May, to confirm or deny a statement of this kind, and I am certainly not prepared to reveal at any time in public, seeing who is watching us, operational proposals.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that before this programme is completed the Royal Auxiliary Air Force in Fighter Command will receive the latest fighters before they are sent overseas?

Mr. Alexander: I think that a statement of that kind has already been made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Air.

Married Quarters

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Defence to what extent married quarters for the Services, built under the new financial arrangements, will be subject to planning control and local authority by-laws.

Mr. Alexander: These married quarters will be dealt with in the same way as all other Government development projects. The position is that although the Crown is not bound by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, in practice the local planning authorities are consulted. Similarly, although Crown property is exempt from building by-laws it is usual for Departments to consult local authorities. In these circumstances there is no doubt that these houses, which are based on the Ministry of Health Housing Manual, will be in accord with the by-laws.

Legal Aid

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Minister of Defence whether he is aware that the free legal aid system for members of

the Armed Forces is due to come to an end next year; and what steps he now proposes to take to ensure adequate legal aid being given to members of the Armed Forces in view of the decision to postpone some parts of the Legal Aid and Assistance Act, 1949.

Mr. Alexander: Following the decision to postpone the operation of certain parts of the Legal Aid and Advice Act the question of continuing the existing scheme of legal aid for the Forces is being examined. I regret that I cannot yet make any detailed statement on the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of officers and other ranks in the Army and Royal Air Force have deferred voluntarily their release for quite a long period in order to operate this scheme, and will he try to see that their claims for consideration are not overlooked when appointments are made in a general scheme?

Mr. Alexander: I am aware of the sacrifices which have been made by many officers in the Army and Air Force in retaining their positions in the Forces in order to do this work. I am quite sure that these facts are known to the Service Ministers concerned and that I can leave the matter to them.

Defence Treaties (Committees)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Minister of Defence if he will publish a table showing what military committees and subcommittees have been set. up under the North Atlantic Treaty, the Brussels Treaty, and the recently inaugurated regional groupings; the responsibilities of these committees and what countries are represented on them; which committees created by the Anglo-American Combined Chiefs of Staff Planning Board are still in existence; and if he will indicate what is the relationship of these committees each with the other and with the Supreme Chiefs of Staff Committee in Washington.

Mr. Alexander: A White Paper giving the main features of the military organisations set up under the Brussels and North Atlantic Treaties will be published shortly. As regards the third part of the Question, the Combined Chiefs of Staff


organisation has been disbanded and the last part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any single one of this multitude of committees is in any way answerable to or is even built in the remotest shadow of the United Nations Organisation?

Mr. Alexander: I should think quite as much as any arrangement between the satellite countries and Moscow.

Mr. Chamberlain: Is there not a tremendous wastage involved in this infectious epidemic of committees and sub-committees, and shall we not have to have still more committees and subcommittees to sort out where the first ones begin and end?

Mr. Alexander: I am quite sure that the country at large would not wish to be left in the defenceless position which began to arise out of events of 1946 and 1947, and will realise that only collective action with other peoples in the world can provide the necessary deterrent required.

Mr. Swingler: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his policy of disclosing British official secrets to other members of these committees when there is a liability on serving officers who disclose these secrets?

Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend is assuming that some serving officer has disclosed a secret. I do not know of any such circumstance.

FRUIT IMPORTS

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Food what increased purchases he is making of oranges, dates,

figs and nuts from North Africa, in view of the fact that a 50 per cent. cut has been made under the Marshall Aid Plan on private traders.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): Private imports of these commodities are made under open general licence and are not subject to restriction on quantity. I do not know to what cut my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Freeman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this statement was given considerable publicity in the Press, and will she repudiate it? Can she also assure the House that the largest possible amount of these desirable commodities will be provided?

Dr. Summerskill: I shall be very glad if my hon. Friend would send me the Press cuttings. The answer to the second part of his supplementary question is "Yes."

Mr. Janner: In view of the great importance of having as many commodities as possible available, can my right hon. Friend say what is the cause of delay in the negotiations between her Department and the citrus growers of Israel, and whether the matter can be disposed of fairly quickly?

Dr. Summerskill: That is another question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 100.

Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jenkins, R H.
Randall, H. E.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Ranger, J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Rankin, J.


Deer, G.
Keenan, W.
Roes-Williams, D. R.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reeves, J.


Delargy, H J.
Kinley, J.
Reid, T (Swindon)


Dobbie, W
Kirkwood, Rt Hon. D.
Richards, R.


Dodds, N. N.
Lang, G.
Robens, A.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lavers, S.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Robertson, J, J. (Berwick)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Dye, S.
Lee, Miss C. (Cannock)
Royle, C.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Leonard, W.
Sharp, Granville


Edelman, M.
Lovy, B. W.
Shurmer, P.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lindgren, G. S.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Silverman, S S. (Nelson)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skinnard, F. W.


Ewart, R.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Farthing, W. J.
Longden, F.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Fernyhough, E.
Lyne, A. W.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Field, Capt. W. J.
McAdam, W.
Snow, J. W.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McEntee, V. La T.
Solley, L. J.


Follick, M.
McGhee, H. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Foot, M. M.
Mack, J. D.
Steele, T.


Forman, J. C.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stokes, R. R.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McKinlay, A. S
Stubbs, A. E.


Freeman, J. (Watford)
McLeavy, F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon Edith


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Swingler, S.


Gallacher, W.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Sylvester, G. O.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gibson, C. W
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfteld)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Gilzean, A.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Gooch, E. G.
Medland, H. M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Tiffany, S.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mikardo, Ian
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Grenfell, D. R
Mitchison, G. P.
Walker, G. H.


Grey, C. F.
Morley, R
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Grierson, E.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Warbey, W. N.


Guy, W. H
Mort, D. L
Watson, W M


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Moyle, A.
Webb, M. (Bradford C)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Murray, J. D
Weitzman, D.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Nally, W.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hardy, E. A.
Naylor, T. E.
West, D. G.


Harrison, J.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Herbison, Miss M.
Oldfield, W. H.
Wilkes, L


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Orbach, M.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hobson, C. R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Houghton, Douglas
Pannell, T. C.
Willey. O G. (Cleveland)


Hoy, J.
Pargiter, G A.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hubbard, T.
Parke' J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Hudson, J H. (Ealing, W.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Piratin, P.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Wilmot, Rt Hon. J


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Wyatt, W.


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Popplewell, E.
Ya'es, V F.


Janner, B.
Porter, E. (Warrington)



Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Price, M. Philips
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Prector, W. T.
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.

Division No. 291.]
AYES
[3.44 p.m


Acland, Sir Richard
Battley, J. R.
Burke, W. A


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bechervaise, A. E.
Callaghan, James


Albu, A. H.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Chamberlain, R. A.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworh)
Berry, H.
Champion, A. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bing, G. H. C.
Chafer, D.


Alpass, J. H.
Binns, J.
Chetwynd, G. R


Attewell, H. C.
Blackburn, A. R.
Coldrick, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Blenkinsop, A.
Collindridge, F.


Austin, H. Lewis
Blyton, W. R.
Collins, V. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Bottomley, A. G.
Colman, Miss G. M


Ayles, W. H.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Cooper, G.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Bramall, E. A.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N.W.)


Bacon, Miss A.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Cove, W. G.


Balfour, A.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cullen, Mrs.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Daines, P.


Bartlett, V.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Barton, C
Burden T. W.
Davles, Ernest (Enfield)




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Davidson, Viscountess
Galnraith, Cmdr. T. 0. (Pollok)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Gammans, L. D.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
De la Bère, R.
Gates, Maj. E. E.


Baxter, A. B
Digby, S. Wingfield
George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'ke)


Beamish, Mai T. V. H.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Glyn, Sir R.


Bower, N.
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Gridley, Sir A


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Drayson, G. B.
Grimston, R. V.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Drewe, C.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Duthie, W. S.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Carson, E.
Erroll, F. J.
Herbert, Sir A. P.


Challen, C.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Fox, Sir G.
Hogg, Hon. Q.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Bill read a Second time.

Hurd, A.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Spence, H. R.


Jennings, R.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Sallsbury)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Keeling, E. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cireneester)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Mott-Radclyffe, C E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Odey, G. W
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Rentrew, [...])
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Low, A R W.
Pickthorn, K.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Lucas, Major Sir J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Price-White, D.
Turton, R. H.


Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Raikes, H. V.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Ramsay, Maj. S
Vane, W. M. F.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Renton, D
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Sanderson, Sir F.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Scott, Lord W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Mellor, Sir J.
Shephard, S. (Newark)



Mohan, A. H. E.
Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

Orders of the Day — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.53 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will recall that as early as March this year the Public Works (Festival of Britain) Act, 1949, was passed with general support, and it is my hope that after we have had the opportunity of discussing this matter the Bill which is now before us will secure general agreement. When we were discussing the main Measure in the early part of the year the limitations in the size of the South Bank site were recognised on all sides of the House, but I feel that the advantages of having the main part of the exhibition in the very heart of London, and also the opportunity it provided for a commencement in the development of the South Bank commended itself to Members on all sides of the House.
But it was quite clear during those proceedings that it was generally appreciated that only a limited part of the Festival could find habitation on the South Bank, and in our Debates Members on all sides of the House emphasised the need for the Festival of Britain to be indeed a national Festival and for it to find expression in all parts of the country. As this programme has unfolded itself it is quite clear that that general desire is being very adequately met. If hon. Members are familiar with the programme of activities as it has so far developed, I do not think that they can very well challenge my statement.
There will be two travelling exhibitions, one on land and one on sea. [An HON. MEMBER: "That has nothing to do with the Bill."] It has nothing to do with the Bill but I would crave the indulgence of the House because I think it is connected in the sense that the Festival Gardens which have been provided for in this Bill fit into the general picture. The Debate on this Bill represents in a sense a continuation of our earlier discussions. I venture to suggest that our Debate will suffer considerably if we isolate it from

the rest of the intentions of the Festival Committee.
I trust that I shall at least have the indulgence of hon. Members opposite to enable me—I shall be very brief—to give an indication of the activities.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of Order. The Minister has indicated that in moving the Second Reading of this Bill he desires to widen the discussion to cover the whole of the activities of the Festival of Britain. For the guidance of the House would you, Mr. Speaker, indicate whether such a discussion would come within the Rules of Order?

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that this Bill deals only with the L.C.C. and London. If the House generally wishes to discuss the whole matter I am in their hands, but it would not be in Order to go outside London.

Mr. Barnes: It is not my desire to proceed on this point. If my hon. Friends opposite persist in their objection I do not propose to amplify that particular statement.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Further to that point of Order. The Minister must not say that it is a matter of whether we persist in our objection. It is a matter of his being out of Order. One can refer on Second Reading to what is not in the Bill, but I venture to suggest that it will result in a very discursive Debate if we are to discuss all the various possibilities that the Festival of Britain may cover, such as the visit of an aircraft carrier to the ports and the pros and cons of that. This Bill is concerned with a very narrow point—whether or not the actual site in London is to be extended by 40 acres, with a certain contingent liability on the taxpayers of this country and the ratepayers of London. With great respect, I suggest that there will be a much better Debate on this Bill if it is confined narrowly to the limits of the Bill.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): My right hon. Friend is of course in your hands, Mr. Speaker, according to the Ruling which you have given. It is perfectly true that we can have a narrow Debate on the provisions of the Bill, but I am bound to say that I thought that my right hon. Friend was


meeting what I understood to be the general sense of the House and particularly the sense of the Opposition. They did desire an opportunity to have a general discussion, which I thought was reasonable, but if it is held that we cannot discuss anything outside the actual contents of the Bill, and you so rule we shall of course comply. But I really thought that the general sense of the House, in the light of recent Parliamentary Questions, had been that an opportunity for a fairly general Debate was desired.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The point on which I sought your guidance, Mr. Speaker, was not related to the merits or demerits of discussing the whole matter but whether you would permit hon. Members so to do.

Mr. Collins: One of the difficulties is that this Bill deals with the necessity of providing an additional 40 acres. It is difficult to see how we can discuss that point without some reference to other matters which are proceeding as part of the Festival of Britain.

Mr. Ellis Smith: May I submit that Clauses 6, 7 and 8 make this Bill very wide and that we can have a very wide discussion on those Clauses?

Mr. Speaker: As far as I read the Bill, it is strictly limited and applies only to London and to the London County Council. Of course, it is a matter for the House. If the House wants to have a wide discussion I shall not stand in the way, but if there is objection then I must hold the House to the Rules, and we must abide by the Bill and the contents of the Bill.

Sir Alan Herbert: Does it help, Mr. Speaker, if I point out that the Preamble to the Bill says:
To make, in connection with the Festival of Britain, 1951, provision for festival gardens"?
Does that open out a fuller avenue for debate?

Mr. Speaker: The Bill does not apply to the country as a whole, and this is not a Festival of Britain Bill. It is only a Supplementary Provisions Bill.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The first sentence of all in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says:

The main purpose of the Bill is to enable the London County Council to enclose not more than 40 acres of land,
etc. If we had realised that the Government wanted a wide discussion we should have been quite prepared, but we consider that we should discuss only the fun fair, the narrow point of the Batter sea Park gardens. That is the point we seek guidance about. We shall have a much better Debate and a better chance of extracting information if we confine the discussion to that point.

Mr. H. Morrison: I do not want to pursue the matter, but the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) is a little naughty. The whole purpose of the Government was to meet the wishes of possible critics in the House as a whole. So far as the Government are concerned, the Debate can be as narrow as hon. Members like. We shall get the Bill through all the more quickly. If this course is insisted upon it must be so, but I resent the suggestion that the Government were in any way motivated by their own convenience. I was actuated solely by the wish to do justice to the House.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am sorry. I did not make any suggestion at all of that kind. We had a discussion, as the right hon. Gentleman will confirm, and we foresaw a comparatively early end to this Debate.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: May I put another point, Mr. Speaker? A number of hon. Members wish to have a slightly wider Debate than has been suggested. We should like to know, before my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport resumes his speech, whether the Debate is to be narrow or wide. Otherwise it will be very difficult, because some hon. Members will stick to the narrow issues and others will open out to the wider issues.

Mr. Benn Levy: Surely there could be no objection to a wide Debate, which after all would include the narrow points.

Mr. Speaker: I have to obey the Rules of the House. By general agreement perhaps the Debate might go wide, but if I am asked for a Ruling, then I must say that the Debate must conform to the contents of the Bill and to nothing else.

Mr. Barnes: I am confident that the remarks which I was going to make on the wider implications of the Bill would have been completed long before now. Perhaps I shall be permitted to say that a justification for the Bill is that if we had been able to secure a site, or if the South Bank site had been twice or even treble its 30-odd acres, there' is little doubt that provision would have been made under the original Bill for the Festival amusement gardens. The Festival Council had to look elsewhere for accommodation. Battersea Park is obviously the nearest and the most suitable place for an activity of this description. The Government are as anxious as anyone that the utmost economy should be exercised in regard to the Festival Gardens, but it would be a tragedy and very short-sighted if this aspect of the Festival were to he spoiled because of excessive economy.
Perhaps I have a vested or departmental interest in the whole idea of the Festival. Any project that will promote travel by sea or inland transport arouses my keen interest. I am confident that the Festival will attract an enormous number of people to this country from abroad, and we do not wish to put the Festival of Britain idea over in a joyless manner. It is a mistake to approach expenditure of this character by saying that it will be of no permanent value to the community.
I know that from the expenditure upon traffic facilities will come much of permanent value to London. In the Bill the Minister of Transport is seeking powers for the first time to make grants towards the provision of additional piers to facilitate and encourage river transport. In 1948, passengers on the water buses which were then inaugurated numbered 468,000. This year the water buses carried 882,625 passengers, an increase of almost 100 per cent. That demonstrates clearly one of the justifications for the Bill, that the provision of the additional piers will encourage our river transport.
During the war we recognised the desirability of maintaining the recreational interests of the community. However difficult may be our economic circumstances, no one would suggest for a moment a modification or interference with the normal amusement facilities, whether in the form of the theatre or

the cinema or of any other public sport. In those circumstances I find it exceedingly difficult to appreciate the argument or the criticism against Festival activities of this kind, whether on the South Bank which will deal especially with the general cultural interests and accomplishments of the British people, in the South Kensington Science Exhibition or in the East London Town Planning Exhibition.
I fail to see how legitimate criticism can be levelled at this project, which aims to provide the lighter amusement and entertainment in pleasure gardens such as are almost invariably a part of any national exhibition in this country or elsewhere. As I said before, if the main site had been sufficiently large, this provision would have been carried through automatically and I believe that it would then have passed unobserved, but because circumstances have necessitated going a short distance down the river and choosing another site, we are met with these objections. However, I do not believe that the objections can be substantiated.
I readily admit that it would always be desirable to choose some other site than a proportion of a park, but that is impossible in the centre of London. In this case every precaution will be taken to avoid damage to the amenities of the park. It is not a question of excluding the public from the use of the park. It is obvious that many more thousands of people will visit Battersea Park than would normally do so if it remained in its present condition. We are not considering any proposal to exclude the public of London or any part of the British public from the enjoyment of the amenities of Battersea Park; what is proposed is the improvement and enlargement of the present amenities and attractions and the installation of additional ones which it will be open to the public to enjoy.
The area which will be temporarily withdrawn from public use until the amenities are improved will amount to only about one-fifth of the total area of the park. Every provision is made in the Bill for its restoration to the public immediately the period of the Festival is over, either in its original form or improved by the permanent retention of facilities which have been installed if the L.C.C. require to maintain them.
In the personnel of the Festival Gardens Company, with which the Government and the London County Council will arrange to carry out these projects, we have a very substantial security that all the operations will be conducted in a proper manner.

Mr. Pickthorn: Just like the directors of the Bank of England?

Mr. Barnes: I should certainly expect from this body a more intelligent comment than we have had from the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). The chairman of the company is Sir Henry French. We have as one of the directors Lord Aberconway, the President of the Royal Horticultural Society and a member of the Council of the Royal Society of Arts. I have had dealings with Lord Aberconway in other ways in my Department and I suggest that it would be difficult to find any person with a wider business knowledge.

Mr. Kirkwood: Lord Aberconway is one of our ablest industrialists. He is chairman of John Brown, Ltd., the builders of the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth," the two greatest ships afloat. He is a Scotsman.

Mr. Barnes: My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will agree that Lord Aberconway has turned out some very good ships. Lord Aberconway has always maintained a very direct interest in any processes leading to the beautifying of our roads and cities. It is grotesque to assume that a man like Lord Aberconway would be a party to conducting the Festival Gardens in any other manner than would conform to the dignity of the Festival and of this country.
Then there is Sir Charles Cochran, a theatrical manager and producer of note; Lord Latham, Chairman of the London Transport Executive; the Chairman of the London County Council; the Chairman of the London County Council Finance Committee—[Interruption.] Why not? There is also the Leader of the London County Council. They have a very great interest in this product. We have also the Clerk to the London County Council. I do not know whether

that will receive derisory cheers from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but if the Leader of the London County Council does not entirely commend himself to their judgment, I think they will at least agree that Sir Howard Roberts is an official upon whose opinion they can depend.
The proposal in Clause 1 is that not more than 40 acres, or one-fifth of the total area of the park, shall be enclosed for this purpose. The Government are prepared, and will accept the responsibility, to advance up to £570,000, and the London County Council up to £200,000. It does not follow that all this capital will be needed, but the resources are provided in case it should be. Clause 2 contains provision for the Government and the L.C.C. to enter into an agreement with the Festival Gardens Company with regard to the repayment of interest, capital and security. Clause 3 provides the safeguards for the reinstatement of the park if it is so desired. It provides that if the London County Council consider that any of the buildings erected or works carried out would be of permanent value, they can secure the benefits for the public.
We then come to a series of Clauses which provide for the Festival Gardens Company exemptions which would not ordinarily be available. Normally any person who thought that he would suffer a nuisance through this type of undertaking could take action by applying to the courts for an injunction. If such an action were permitted it would interrupt our project. While it prevents an individual from obtaining an injunction, Clause 4 does not take away the rights to damages which might result from a nuisance having been committed by the company, except that a claimant to compensation is limited as to the time in which he can make his claim, but any person who is of the opinion that he has established a claim to compensation and to whom the company had either failed to pay compensation or has paid inadequate compensation, will still retain the right of action in the courts.
Clause 5 is even more radical in its process of exempting the Festival Gardens Company in certain other directions, but the same provision was made in the principal Act. It modifies the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act,


1947, and applies it to the Festival Gardens in the same way as it applies to the South Bank site. It relieves the company of the payment of development charges; preserves the position of the London County Council and provides that planning permission is deemed to have been granted.
Clause 5 also confers upon the Minister of Transport the same powers to regulate traffic as are provided in the earlier Bill, and gives similar powers to the London County Council to make provision for car parking accommodation. About half the car parking accommodation will be provided in Battersea Park and about another half of the requisitioned car parking accommodation will be on an adjacent site.
Clause 6 exempts the company from the operations of the provisions of the London Building Acts of 1930 to 1939 and also from the provisions of Part II of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, insofar as they relate to drainage requirements. The Clause further provides that it shall not be necessary to obtain a licence for public entertainment of the kinds specified in the Clause. It is obvious that in the time available the company could not conform to the provisions of those Acts as far as the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs are concerned, and accordingly it is proposed that the buildings certified by the Minister shall be exempt from the requirements of those Acts and bye-laws which I have mentioned.
Since the buildings will not have been approved by the local authority, the Festival of Britain office and the Festival Gardens Company could not in the ordinary way obtain a licence to give public entertainment. Therefore we provide exemption from the need to obtain a licence, provided—and I want hon. Members to note this point—that the entertainment is certified by the Minister to be provided for the Festival of Britain.

Mr. James Hudson: Does my right hon. Friend include under "entertainment" the question of alcoholic refreshment licences?

Mr. Barnes: I do not know that I should call that an entertainment; I should call that a necessity for the vast majority of the community, if not necessarily the whole community.
To get back to the point of these exemptions, it is clearly recognised that this places considerable responsibility upon the Government. Therefore we have asked the Festival of Britain office and the Festival Gardens Company Limited to ensure that in all their undertakings they will adopt standards of building construction and lay-out as exacting as those required under the Acts from which they are being given exemption. We have received an assurance from these bodies that they will meet that request of the Government.

Mr. Braddock: If it is the case that they will impose more stringent conditions, why is exemption asked for? Surely it would be better to leave it to the experience of the well qualified local authorities in this area?

Mr. Barnes: It is a question of time. I understand that they could not get through the procedure laid down by the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs in time to get on with these works.

Mr. Braddock: rose

Mr. Barnes: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity of putting his point later, and there will be other hon. Members who have experience of the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs who—

Mr. Braddock: But I should not like this vital point to pass. I can assure my right hon. Friend that there is no authority in the country, not excluding the new Festival of Britain authority, better qualified to deal with a matter of this kind than the London County Council.

Mr. Barnes: I am not denying that. Running through the arrangements is a clear recognition of the quality of the standards laid down. I have specifically drawn the attention of hon. Members to these Clauses because I recognise their importance. It is because we appreciate that the time factor does not enable this procedure to be followed that I have emphasised that this places responsibility upon the Government to see that those standards are maintained although there is exemption.
I would explain to my hon. Friend that we have gone further. We are making


provision for the expert officers of the London County Council and the Ministry of Works to be available to give the Festival authority the necessary advice. So I can asure the House that, while we are seeking these exemptions, it is not in order to evade the standards laid down by these Acts of Parliament but to gain the necessary time, and every step will be taken to see that the standards are maintained.

Sir Harold Webbe: I believe it is contemplated that at least some of these buildings may become permanent structures and a permanent part of the amenities, or otherwise, of Battersea Park. Therefore it is clearly most important that they should conform to the standards which the London County Council demand in all other buildings under its charge.

Mr. Barnes: I see no reason why they should not. As I have already indicated, we are making provisions in the Bill to enable the London County Council to retain any of these structures if they feel that they are of permanent advantage to the public using Battersea Park. It follows, therefore, that the London County Council will be especially keen and active in ensuring that these buildings are erected to their standards. I can only emphasise again that we are seeking these exemptions purely on the point of time, not with any desire to evade the quality or the standard that this procedure lays down.

Sir H. Webbe: If the London County Council—

Mr. Barnes: I have no desire to avoid answering questions in presenting the Bill, but I would remind hon. Members that there will be an opportunity of putting these points in Debate, and that on matters concerning the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs my right hon. Friend the Lord President is much more qualified to satisfy hon. Members than I could ever hope to be, not having served on those bodies.
In Clause 7 we are seeking powers to enable two piers to be built at the Festival Gardens site. It is proposed that the river services should be provided on a voluntary—private enterprise—basis and I hope in this direction to have the cooperation of the Thames passenger boat

proprietors. Discussions are now taking place about the sufficiency of suitable craft. 'We have reached the stage at which, in order to ensure that the services are provided on an orderly basis, we are seeking powers in the Clause to enable bye-laws to be made controlling all traffic using these piers, to establish standards for types of vessels which can be used on these services, and regarding the amenities to be provided and the fares to be fixed.
In order to ensure that river services to the Exhibition and Festival Gardens will not be unduly interrupted by other boat services, powers are sought to enable bye-laws to be made jointly by the London County Council and the Port of London Authority with regard to the use of these piers. Hitherto, the Minister of Transport has had no powers in conjunction with the Port of London Authority and the London County Council to regulate in any way these water bus services on the Thames. As I have already indicated, these services have this year carried well towards a million passengers, and with the added river and waterborne transport, which we desire greatly to encourage for the Exhibition of 1951, it is essential that the Minister should have at least these tentative powers to ensure that certain public obligations are carried out. That will be done in conjunction with the Port of London Authority and the London County Council.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: On the question of water transport, will the Minister devote a very short time to altering the name of these rather attractively designed river craft which ply up and down the Thames from the name "water bus"?

Sir A. Herbert: Why?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: "Water bus" is a terrible name and one that is extremely offensive to any seaman. We do not talk of "air buses" but of "aircraft." I ask the Minister to alter the name. He might call them "river water transport" or something like that.

Mr. Barnes: I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member should direct his remarks to the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert), who is sitting near to him. I understand it was he who originated the existing description


of these craft, which I think is an excellent name. It would be a great mistake now to interfere with it.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: It is an awful name.

Mr. Barnes: The only other point I wish to emphasise is that under the Bill powers will be given to the Minister to make grants towards the establishment of the piers. It is not fair at this stage that this burden should be placed wholly upon the Port of London Authority, the London County Council or any Metropolitan Borough.
I feel that I have occupied the attention of the House far too long, but I believe we have created already, in this Debate and in the interruptions which have occurred, some of the Festival atmosphere which I hope the gardens will make universal.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr Burghs): The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the hygienic arrangements for the food and refreshments to be served at the Exhibition. Those existing in the parks of London are a disgrace.

Mr. Barnes: Obviously, that is a matter for the Festival company. If hon. Members emphasise the need for the company to establish a standard that might become general in our parks throughout the country, they will be providing added justification for the creation of the company.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Speaking personally, I found the speech to which we have just listened extremely disappointing, for this reason: that when I was entrusted by my colleagues with the task of dealing with the Bill today, I thought the only fair thing to do was to see the authorities at Savoy Court. I spent a considerable time with them trying to find out what they had in mind and what were the arguments pro and con. Although I started off with a bias against the fun fair proposal, I realised after listening that there were certain arguments in its favour; and my hon. Friends and I decided to listen to the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman before we formed any final conclusion. I think the House will agree, however, that the right hon. Gentleman failed to adduce any new argument or to answer any of the

questions to which the House might legitimately expect to have an answer on the Second Reading of the Bill.
The only things for which the speech of the Minister was distinguished were, first, his delicious description—which I welcomed, although the hon. Member for Ealing, West (Mr. J. Hudson) probably did not share my joy—of drinks as being a necessity; and secondly, his unexpected confession of the results of the mass of regulations and controls which he and his right hon. Friends have imposed on the cost and speed of housing. Those are useful contributions to our general politics but not to this Debate.
Mr. Speaker—very rightly, if I may say so with respect—said that he wanted this discussion to be confined to the Bill. I remind the House that, as recently as last week, we on this side confirmed what had been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) in the Debate on 10th February last, that we were in agreement with the principle of the Festival. Whatever may be our hindsight today, we nevertheless supported the main Bill at the beginning and still, in view of the Government's commitments, support the present Bill.
The first matter about which we want to know is when the proposal for an extension of the area of the Exhibition was first put forward. That is a material factor and a fair question, because I have been looking through the speech made by the Lord President of the Council on 10th February, when his only reference to Battersea Park was to point out that it obviously was not available for the Exhibition site. Is it not a fact that the first suggestion to be put officially to the Department of the Lord President was made on either 2nd or 3rd February of this year? I am informed, on reasonably good authority, that it was and that the director of the Exhibition, Mr. Gerald Barry, in fact communicated to the right hon. Gentleman's Department on 2nd or 3rd February the suggestion, with, I believe, a member of the London County Council, that it was necessary to extend the area of the fair. The House will take note that that was a week before we discussed the main Festival Bill, namely, on 10th February, and that no mention whatever occurred in the whole of that Debate—which I have checked carefully through


twice—of this proposal that the area of the Exhibition should be extended and should be extended, let it be noted, to more than double the size.
The original idea was that the South Bank site should be 30 acres, but this suggestion we are discussing today is that from Battersea Park there should be 40 acres also. In other words, when the House was asked to express approval of the main Bill, there was in the right hon. Gentleman's office, I believe, a proposal to more than double the size of the Exhibition and bring in this supplementary idea of a fun fair. The right hon. Gentleman said that everyone must have his bit of fun in an exhibition, and he quoted one or two cases. I am not aware that there was a fun fair at the South Kensington Exhibition. I will come to the actual question of the fun fair later on.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: According to my recollection—whether this was mentioned I cannot say—it was known from the beginning that 30 acres were not sufficient to cover the whole Exhibition, and there was nothing completely novel about it.

Mr. Hudson: If the hon. Member took the trouble to listen carefully—

Mr. Lindsay: I am trying to do so.

Mr. Hudson: —I said that the question of doubling the original area was not mentioned by anyone in that Debate. He may have known it and some other individuals may have known it, but I guarantee that the vast majority of hon. Members, certainly on this side of the House, have never heard of it at all.

Mr. Lindsay: Mr. Lindsay indicated dissent.

Mr. Hudson: If the right hon. Gentleman when he replies says he had not been told about it, I will withdraw. All I say now is that I am told that he had been told of the suggestion and no mention was made of Battersea except that it was not a suitable place for the Exhibition. I make no further charge and obviously the intervention of the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) has no relevance whatever.
What I want to know, and what I think the House and the country are

entitled to know, is the history of this proposal. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what happened at those various conferences he had with local authorities. Again, I am informed that in fact the original proposal was not for a fun fair for one year but for a fun fair for five years, and that it was only in response to protests from local authorities that the extent was reduced from five years to one year. Again, nothing was said to this House about it, nor was it openly discussed in council by the London County Council, but only in committee, and hon. Members of this House had no opportunity of knowing it. So far as I can trace, the first the public as a whole knew about this proposal was on 30th June in a hand-out.

Sir A. Herbert: rose—

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member will have a chance later. The Minister of Transport put forward no excuse whatever for this extension except that we ought to have a bit of fun and that gardens look nice. What I want to know is, was that the only or main reason? If so, I suggest there is no justification whatever for spending this money and depriving the public of Battersea of their free access to that portion of the park which is going to be cut off for a year.
I do not think I am betraying any confidence in this, because I was told it by the chairman when I went to see them last week, but I am informed that the main reason, the most compelling reason and the only real reason the Government were insisting on it was the statement by the police that, unless they had an overspill, unless they had a place for overflow, they could not guarantee to control the crowd in a narrow space. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is no use saying "Oh," I am telling the House what I have been informed. I do not know if it is true, but I am asking whether what has been told me by authoritative people of the Exhibition is, or is not true. They informed me that the police say in effect—I do not know the exact words—that unless they had Battersea Park they could not be responsible for controlling the crowd inside the other area.
If that is true, it is a very serious factor indeed, which obviously must have very great influence on hon. Members in this


House. If it is true, why were we not told it by the Minister of Transport? Why were we not told it earlier? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer these questions. We would like to know if the police made these representations. The right hon. Gentleman smiles, but I ask him to take the position seriously.

Mr. H. Morrison: With great respect, I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman is worrying himself so much with all these little things. I will tell him all about it when I reply, but he is persistently miserable without due cause.

Mr. Hudson: What I want to know is, if this was stated by the police, when was it brought to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, because in his speech on the main Bill, on 10th February, he was at some pains to speak at length of the difficulties of the traffic arrangements and the police. No doubt he will remember that he actually said:
I admit that I had to reason considerably with the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police to persuade them that such risks to the ordinary circulation ought to be accepted at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 548.]
Were the police making representations at that time?

Mr. Morrison: There are quite a number of things they will be asking before they have done.

Mr. Hudson: I am asking if since the original scheme, they came forward and said that unless Battersea Park was used they could not be responsible. If that is so, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have disclosed that fact, which was in his knowledge then, when speaking on 10th February. Otherwise he was withholding material information from this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Obviously he was withholding the information because he did not tell the House on 10th February that he was going to ask for a doubling of the area of the Exhibition. He could quite easily have made it in his speech.

Sir A. Herbert: If anyone had mentioned that, judging by what has happened this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to say that it was not in Order because it was not in the Bill,

Mr. Hudson: I was not in charge that day.
This is a material factor and should be cleared up. Is it still the main reason, and am I correctly informed that it was decided to have this fun fair and incur this additional expense because the police made representations?
The other question which we should like to put is, why was it so long delayed? People may have their own ideas of the fun fair, but the Government seem to be in considerable doubt about it. If this fun fair is to attract visitors from overseas, it is not necessary at all, because ordinary Americans will not be attracted to this Exhibition by the knowledge that they can go to Battersea Park. If, on the other hand, it is being provided because it will attract millions of provincial visitors to the Festival, it is probably a necessary adjunct, because something of the sort will be expected.
We are entitled to be told about the finances of this proposal. We have been told, not in the Bill itself but in Government statements, that this scheme might well result in a loss of £100,000, shared at the rate of £60,000 and £40,000 between the Government and the L.C.C. How has that figure been arrived at? We are entitled to ask for an estimate of what is going to be the cost of building the fun fair and the gardens. We are also entitled to ask what the Amusement Council are doing about it. For example, what charge is likely to be made and what are the hours of opening? Are they going to be open every day including Saturdays and Sundays? Are the Amusement Council going to have concessions? Is the fun fair going to be run by the Exhibition authorities, and is there any firm estimate of what the Amusement Council are going to pay for all these concessions to the Exhibition authorities?
What is going to happen inside the Festival Gardens? Is the restaurant going to be run by the civic restaurant or is it going to be let out to a concessionary? These seem to me to be questions which we can legitimately ask. I may add that if the right hon. Gentleman had given that sort of information in his speech, it would probably have allayed some of our doubts and would very materially have shortened our proceedings.
I divide my proposal into two parts. I believe that the Government ought not to subsidise the fun fair out of public money. It ought to be possible to make


it pay by providing concessions and by receipts from the people who visit it.
In regard to the Festival Gardens, I have a suggestion to make. I hope the House will not think I am boasting, but before the war, when I was Secretary for Overseas Trade, I had considerable experience of exhibitions and British pavilions both at home and abroad. Within a certain limit, I tried to provide something suitable. It might be possible to provide something absolutely lovely in Battersea Park, which would be a permanent advantage to the country. If half a dozen of us were given a free hand with the money we could produce something which people from all over the world would come to see.
The question arises: Is this the time to do it? I believe that what the Government ought to do is to have the whole plan recast. I was told by headquarters that they hoped to build certain of the items in the Festival Gardens of a permanent character, so that when the Exhibition is over the local authority can say, "We think that would be of permanent advantage and we will keep it." Looking at the plan, my personal criticism is that the fun fair and Festival Gardens are conceived without thinking how the individual items would fit in when the show comes to an end. Probably only three or four of them will be of a permanent character. I want to add that by the same token, the authorities are short-sighted in not providing us with more details and with more plans. One small plan is all we have.
I feel personally that the lay-out wants redesigning from two points of view. In the first place, we want to consider how the individual things are going to look when the park is restored. As an appendix to that, the right hon. Gentleman was not quite right in saying that the Bill provides for the park's restoration. It only provides for the restoration subject to the fact that the Minister of the day can put off the restoration from time to time. That ought to be deleted from the Bill and a specific time stated in which the restoration should be completed, otherwise it might drag on for years and years and the people of Batter-sea be deprived of re-access to their own open space.
Secondly, the whole scheme should be re-designed on a less elaborate scale, which I do not think would be difficult. The individual buildings need not be any worse. In saying that the design should be less elaborate, I am thinking that it is not absolutely necessary for the benefit of the world at large that grottos should be designed in the way it is proposed. There are plenty of natural grottos elsewhere without artificial ones in Battersea Park. The scheme ought to be redesigned to bring the cost down. Opinions may differ throughout the country as to the desirability of the scheme as a whole. I am very doubtful still if the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the overwhelming factor is not the statement by the police that they must have this overflow, but that the matter is considered purely on its merits.
We have to remember that the amount of men and materials which is going to be used will be considerable. It is a remarkable fact that all such estimates as I have seen—and naturally these things can only be estimates—show that the amount of timber, which after all is one of the things in shortest supply at the present moment, for this part of the Exhibition we are discussing today is actually appreciably greater than the amount of timber required for the more important main Exhibition itself.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Hardwood or softwood, or what?

Mr. Hudson: Softwood. I was not born yesterday. I do know the answer to that. The fact remains that there are millions of people who will benefit from and enjoy this Exhibition. I hope that they will. But what is equally certain is that more millions throughout the country will not have the time, the opportunity or the money to visit it. Every one of these millions—and hon. Members opposite had better bear this in mind—knows of the scarcity and the housing shortage, and knows of the recent cuts in the rate of housing which have had to be imposed owing to the reduction of capital investment, and every—

Mr. Gallacher: Timber is pouring in just now from Soviet Russia.

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member had better tell that to his own leaders. Every one of these millions who do not go


to the Exhibition will, inevitably, feel that he might have got a house, but for the timber having been used in this particular project. Because the right hon. Gentleman has failed to put up a sound thesis, and because we on this side believe in the principle that we ought not to put up money for fun fairs apart from gardens, unless some very much stronger argument is put forward than we have heard up till now, we shall certainly have to vote against the Bill.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. John Wilmot: I was somewhat astonished by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I am very relieved, as I am sure that the whole House and the country will be, that the right hon. Gentleman is not in charge of this project or has anything to do with it. It is a most extraordinary attitude to reveal towards an enterprise which his own party has supported—[Interruption]—oh, indeed, yes; Front Bench representatives of the party of the right hon. Gentleman sit beside me upon the Council of the Exhibition and they have supported it right through—in my view rightly so. So it is very difficult to know exactly what game the right hon. Gentleman is up to. Does he want to kill the thing? Or does he just want to cripple it in order that he and his friends may have the melancholy pleasure of gloating over a failure later on? Why does he not apply to this grand enterprise some of those precepts of business administration, far-sighted adventure, pluck, risk and initiative which he urges upon all those engaged in public enterprises?
The right hon. Gentleman got all his facts wrong. Nobody is proposing to turn Battersea Park into a fun fair, nobody at all. There never has been such a project, and there is no such proposal today. It is not a new idea that a national exhibition to celebrate a chapter in our great history should have, as part of the layout, some gardens, some recreation and some amusement. There has never been an exhibition of this scope which has not provided that as part of the attractions.
We are very fortunate indeed in having the possibility of a central site for this Exhibition. Those who have seen the great exhibitions in the City of Paris, where they utilise the Tuilleries and the Champs Elysees, and gardens on the banks of the Seine, enclose the quays and

make use of the actual river, have often wished that we in London should do the same with our wonderful city and river. How much better it is. What an immense appeal it makes to overseas and provincial visitors. How much more noble than an exhibition out at Wembley, or some far away, newly acquired, semi-suburban site, with all the traffic problems, drabness and difficulty which are bound to be associated with it.
We are very fortunate that we have been able at the same time, and to a very large degree for the same expenditure, at last to remove that horrible mess on the South Bank which has been an eyesore in London for so long—and for which the right hon. Gentleman and his party must take much responsibility. It is at last to be made use of, and to be developed into a noble centre first as part of this great Exhibition.
Unfortunately the site is not big enough for the purpose. Somehow we have to squeeze into the very narrow confines the epitome of the tremendous achievements of this great 100 years. It is not desirable that everything shall be educational, everything cultural and everything industrial. We must have some recreation. What better than a lovely garden? And after all, gardens are an essential part of English genius. Battersea Park is already a very beautiful park and in the developing of the best that is in the park into one of the finest urban landscape gardens in the world we have a worthy part of this project. The right hon. Gentleman really ought to tell the House that he has misled it, because I hope he does not want to evoke a lot of unjust prejudice against something which I thought we all want to be a success.
What are the facts? Battersea Park is 200 acres of land. Much of it is very beautiful sylvan glades, flower gardens and shrubberies. Some of it is a playing field; some of it allotments, and some of it, at the present time, is a mess, left from the war-time. Of these 200 acres, all but 37 will remain just as it is. It will be Battersea Park, open to the public, not interfered with, to be used as a park for the purposes for which it is now used. It is only 37 acres out of the 200, less than one-fifth, which is affected at all by this Bill. Could one have gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that less than one-fifth of this area is affected;


and further, that of those 37 acres over 30 will be devoted to special landscape gardens, enhancing the natural beauty of the existing gardens and making there something which will be one of the most lovely attractions of the whole Exhibition?

Mr. J. H. Hare: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House, but in addition to the 37 acres earmarked for the purposes mentioned, there is another five acres to be taken for a car park.

Mr. Wilmot: I am just coming to that. I am quite capable of adding the figures together. Of the 200, approximately 160 will still be Battersea Park, a County Council park, and open to the public as before. Thirty acres will be gardens, immensely improved; I am very glad indeed that the Exhibition Council have been able to secure the services of Lord Aberconway to be responsible for these gardens. He is a gardener of world wide fame and the President of the Royal Horticultural Society. We all know that he has recently given to the nation his own gardens, the most lovely gardens in the world. In the remaining seven acres, there will be provision for car parks and other amenities and what the right hon. Gentleman calls a "fun fair." I prefer to use the words "amusement place." There will be the usual amusements. Surely, the provision of amusements in an exhibition of this kind is not a crime?
That is what is proposed. The Bill proposes to give the County Council the power to close up to one-fifth of the park and to develop it as a garden in which there will be cafes, restaurants, places of rest, places of amusement and a noble development of the river front. It seems to me that if we are to have an exhibition at all, this is a delightful and essential part of it which cannot be provided on the other site because it is too small. All this talk about the terrible dangers which will face London because of traffic congestion is sheer nonsense. If all the people are in one place at the same time, they will be much more congested than if they are in different places at different times. It is just as simple as that.
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have made this sort

of speech. Does he not want this scheme to succeed? Does he want it to be just a dreary waste of indigestible facts, or does he agree that amidst our present troubles, we should show the world what we can do and have done, that we are not down yet, that we are very proud of our history, and that we are going to surmount the troubles that face us today? I observe that the right hon. Gentleman is not alone in his gloom. He does not want to kill this Festival; he merely wants mortally to wound it. He wants it to limp along into a failure over which he can gloat. I see that one of our evening newspapers, the one which has the distinction of having achieved the smallest sale among London's evening newspapers, has taken up the same gloomy tale. I do not know why. I am sure that when the Festival has been, as it will be, a great success and the time comes to bring it to an end, the same people will be crying out for it to be kept open and denouncing "those wicked killjoys "who want to shut down London's entertainment. I sincerely hope that the House will pass this Bill without more ado so that we can carry on with this fine enterprise.

5.14 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I must say that I had hoped that we should find agreement among all parties in the House not only on the Festival of Britain itself but also on the question of the Festival Gardens. One or two shots have been fired by one or two newspapers which mostly support the party above the Gangway, although their support may be intermittent and not to be relied upon. I had expected also that we should have some sniping from the back benches, but I had not expected to have the barrage that we have had from the Opposition Front Bench.
The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) has had a little fun fair of his own. He has put up a lot of Aunt Sallys and knocked them down again. I hope it amused him. I found it rather a gloomy affair. But we are entitled to know where we stand in this matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman speak officially for his party or is he speaking merely as an individual from the Front Bench? It is remarkable that there are two representatives of his party on the Council of the Festival of Britain—the right hon. Gentleman the Member


for Saffron Waldron (Mr. R. A. Butler) and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). It is most unfortunate that neither of them should have found it possible to be here today.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Where are the rest of the Liberal Party?

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I am the only representative of my party on the Council of the Festival of Britain. Therefore, there is a one hundred per cent. attendance. It is most important that we should know where the official Opposition stand in this matter. I hope that we shall hear more about it before the Debate ends. I have not yet discovered whether the right hon. Member for Southport wishes to abandon the project of the Festival Gardens; whether he is against the fun fair; whether he wants to cut it down; or whether he wishes as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. Wilmot) suggested, not only to cut it down but to cripple it. In a matter where it is highly desirable that we should have national unity, as is the case with the Festival of Britain, we should have all these points made abundantly clear before the end of this Debate.
As has been suggested already, there is really nothing new or unexpected in a proposal of this kind. As far as my information goes, there never has been an exhibition without a fun fair or recreational facilities of some sort. I cannot see why an exception should be made in this case unless we are to go in for what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition once called "strength through misery." It amazes me to see that what was traditionally the cakes and ale party should have crossed the Floor and become the killjoy party. My own feeling is that if there are to be no cakes and ale in this Exhibition, it will make a pretty gloomy prospect for foreign visitors, and would hardly be an encouragement to our tourist industry.
This proposal has also been criticised on the ground that the inhabitants of Battersea and South London will have their peace shattered by the screeching noises of the fair. If it is true that they will have to endure a cacophony of unmuted sound for the five summer

months when windows will be open and sounds penetrate with ease, it will be unbearable for them. I hope that that matter will be given very serious consideration by those who ultimately will have to take decisions upon it.
Some extraordinary statements have been made this afternoon. The impression has been given that the whole of Battersea Park is to be closed for a year so that the ground may be prepared for the Festival Gardens.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I did not say that.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: The impression certainly has been given. The right hon. Gentleman may not have meant to do so. I may be doing him an injustice and, if so, I apologise. Certainly, the impression has been given outside that Battersea Park is to be closed to the general public for a year. We now know that that is not so, and that, in point of fact, it means that only 37 acres, or a fifth of the total area, is going to be enclosed. The impression has also been given that that will mean a great hardship to the inhabitants of Battersea, to be denied access to even this portion of the park, but we are informed that about 24 acres are devoted at this moment to allotments which are due in any case to be given up shortly. Five acres consist of playing fields, which will be replaced, and another eight acres of river frontage, partly roadway and partly grass and trees. If hon. Members take into account these facts they will see that there is a great deal of room left over in Battersea Park in which the people may enjoy its amenities.
We have also had some very exaggerated ideas about the fun fair that is to be provided there, as though the whole place was going to be turned into one vast fun fair. Is that so? What are the facts? Out of the 37 acres, only seven are to be given over to the fun fair, while the other 30 acres are to be devoted to what we are told are the quieter pleasures, such as ballet entertainments and concerts of classical music. There will be restaurants there, too, and tea gardens, and it may be of some comfort to the hon. Member opposite that there will be no alcoholic beverages on sale in this particular place. There will be a promenade, underneath the trees, and, of course, gardens.
There is one important point which we must consider in this connection and that is that many of these amenities will remain after the Festival of Britain is over. On the South Bank we should have the concert hall and an improved lay-out. There order will have been created out of what is now chaos. Part of the Festival Gardens will be a permanent asset to the people of London. We understand that the London County Council are considering a proposal for a tea house, a small open-air concert hall and for retaining part of the landscape gardens. We have heard from the Minister earlier today that there has been an increase in the number of people using the river. That is very good news, but we must surely all be agreed that no great city makes such poor and unimaginative use of its great river as does London.
All this development will be of immense and permanent advantage to London, and it is most important that the landscape gardens should be retained as a permanent part of Battersea Park. After all, this is a festival not only to show to the world our achievements in industrial design and technology, but also our achievements in the field of art. Here is an art in which we excel—the art of gardening. Here is an instance where we have a unique contribution to make. Why not have in Battersea Park, not just a well laid out park, for we have lots of those in London already, but something entirely different? Why not have laid out there with all its distinctive features, a lovely English garden, and when I say English I mean English; I do not mean Scottish or Welsh. I do not include, as so many do today in a slipshod way, the greater in the less.
The Minister of Transport has said that Lord Aberconway is a very competent business man. I am not so impressed with, those qualifications, but what I do think is important is that he is the President of the Royal Horticultural Society and one of the most distinguished gardeners in this country. I am therefore delighted that he is to be a member of the Festival Gardens Committee, and I hope that horticultural experts, including the best in the country, will be called in to lay out the kind of garden which does not grow in a year or two but which

has been evolved throughout the centuries in this Anglo-Saxon part of these islands.
I regret that we have obtained no agreement—and, obviously, we have not—among all parties on this Festival project. I deplore this attitude of lack of confidence in our future which the party above the Gangway always shows when it is not in office. One of my earliest political memories is of hearing hon. Members above the Gangway or their ancestors complaining of such a lack of confidence. In those days, a Liberal Government was in office. The country survived that Government. It has even survived Conservative Governments, and I believe that it will survive a Socialist Government. I therefore hope that we shall go forward with this project, not only of the Festival of Britain but also the Festival Gardens, with great and supreme confidence in our destiny.

5.27 p.m.

Mrs. Ganley: I am grateful to the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) because of the support which she has given to this Festival scheme. I think it is very disappointing that we have to listen to all sorts of charges, which are altogether wrong, about the development of Battersea Park and concerning the Festival Gardens. The question has been raised of the cost that will be incurred by this scheme, but, surely, nothing is ever achieved without some expense being incurred to begin with, and if we are to measure the value of this project only on the basis of the cost incurred, I think that will be taking a very poor view of the scheme. As the noble Lady has said, the amount of beauty which can be brought into these already beautiful gardens in Battersea Park is very considerable indeed.
I should like to refer particularly to the question of the river traffic. It is expected that there will be considerable traffic at the time of the Festival of Britain, and while the road traffic will be much heavier in any case, a great deal more traffic will be added to the river services, and, of course, the establishment of new piers will not only be welcomed by the people who use the river at present but will be of definite permanent value to the river traffic. Because of the Festival, very large numbers


of people will be coming into London, and the fact that increased use is made of the river facilities will indicate relief to the considerable traffic which will accumulate on the roads. This question of the intensification of traffic on our roads is one of great concern in that part of London. I happen to come from that area, where I know there are great difficulties regarding transport. I therefore welcome most heartily the present proposal to build piers for river traffic.
I am bound to say that I certainly like the name "river bus" because it so completely describes the alternative to the road bus. When it comes to the question of the river bus being made available to the Festival Gardens in Battersea Park, then very definitely it is going to be an association which will develop, as has already been said, on the lines of that kind of enjoyment. People coming to the Exhibition for the purpose of seeing what has been done, will then be able to turn to a very delightful spot in a very delightful atmosphere and will see other forms of art which, after all, can be very well enjoyed there.
The suggestion has been made that there may be a loss of £100,000 which may be shared between the Government and the London County Council. It has been asked what proportion is going to be borne by the Government and what by the London County Council. That is a question which was pressed very strongly throughout the speech of the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) and it shows a great lack of knowledge of what is going to happen and how this is going to be met. If all this lack of knowledge is expressed and if it is necessary to ask all these questions today about the expense, about the planning, and about what is going to happen, I should be very glad to know how it is that representatives of hon. Members opposite are canvassing people in Batter-sea to sign petitions against the Festival of Britain and the use of Battersea Park. Why are they telling people, as an inducement to make them sign these petitions, that this will cost Battersea 3s. on the rates?
It is an amazing thing, in view of the questions asked and the apparent ignorance expressed, that when we ask how it was known that 3s. in the rates would be put upon the people of Battersea, we

are told that "our solicitor has worked it out for us." Here we have a marvellous solicitor who, without any knowledge of the situation, can prepare such a perfect answer for the people who in this case, are being incited to object to something which may be very useful indeed. I am hoping that in all that is visualised for the extension of the beauty of Battersea Park, in the use of the open-air concert hall, and in the very real use than can be made of it, not only by the citizens of London generally, but by all those who come to the Festival to see the earnest, serious side of it, there will be opportunities to enjoy the real beauties which we hope may come from the use of the river and Battersea Park. For this purpose, Battersea Park is surely one of the most useful spots. It is not too far away, but it is sufficiently far away for one to be able to say that it offers an alternative enjoyment in the inspection of one of the real beauty spots in this great City of London.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. J. H. Hare: I cannot follow the hon. Member for South Battersea (Mrs. Ganley) in all her arguments because I am sure the House will agree that she covered a great number of aspects in a comparatively short space of time. I wish, in the first place, to deal with one point in particular and then to go on to a general point which I should like to tie in with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson).
I feel that there is one power in this Bill which is objectionable to the citizens of London. In my view, it is wrong that the ratepayers of London should be made to bear a portion of a possible loss in what is definitely understood to be a national exhibition. Unfortunately, the Socialist friends of the Lord President of the Council have agreed to this procedure as far as the London County Council are concerned. I am very surprised that the Lord President, who is renowned for his close association with London local government, should have taken up this attitude, and should have advised his friends on the other side of the water that it was right and proper that the London ratepayer should bear some of the loss incurred in the carrying out of this amusement section of the Exhibition.
I gather that it is argued that Londoners as a whole will receive very substantial financial benefit from the foreign visitors and from our own countrymen from the provinces who visit the Exhibition. That is rather a specious argument because, quite clearly, it will affect only the centre of London—certain boroughs within the heart of the city. It is wrong to say that Poplar, Southwark or Bermondsey are going to get very much extra trade as a result of the Exhibition. The people who come to London to visit the Exhibition will visit hotels, restaurants and amusement places in the boroughs of Westminster, Kensington, Marylebone, and so on, rather than the vast number of outlying boroughs which are embraced by the County of London. Therefore, the argument that greater prosperity will come to the average ratepayer in London, and that in these circumstances it is only right and reasonable that he should bear a proportion of the loss, is fallacious.
The House should realise what the London County Council and the London ratepayer are already contributing to this Exhibition. We are completing a concert hall much more quickly than some of us thought wise, in order to fit in with the desire of the Government that this hall should be one of the main features of the Exhibition. We are also erecting a river wall, without which the site for the South Bank Exhibition could not exist at all. That is being done at the cost of the London ratepayer.
I would also point out that, from answers which have been given by the Government Front Bench, it is quite clear that considerable quantities of building materials and labour are being diverted from what might normally have been expected to flow into the pool of London housing itself. In addition, the House must also realise that we as a council are also giving an immense amount of the time of our officers and staffs. This fact, I think, substantiates my argument that it is wrong that, in addition to the contributions we are already making, this Bill should lay it down that we are to bear up to £40,000 of a possible loss.
I am delighted that as far as the London County Council is concerned, our loss is limited, but as far as this House and the national Exchequer are

concerned, I can see no limit to the loss supposing that it reaches a figure higher than £100,000. We have the advantage that this Bill is not sponsored either by the Minister of Food or by the Minister of Health because in the last few weeks and months we have come to the conclusion that we cannot rely very much on the estimates of those two right hon. Gentlemen. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman has something to say, perhaps he will have the courtesy to stand up.

Mr. Nally: I was merely going to say that it is decidedly to the national advantage that this Bill is being presented by a Labour Government and not by the friends of the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare).

Mr. Hare: That is a matter of opinion. It is really quite irrelevant to what I was going to say.

Mr. Nally: rose—

Mr. Hare: I do not think I will give way again to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think he has anything useful to offer.
We are not impressed by the record of many Ministers of this Government in keeping anywhere near, in the final completion of their programmes, the estimates which were originally given to this House. Therefore, I should like some assurance from the Lord President on this proposed loss of £100,000, that he has gone into it with all care, and that he can tell us that it is unlikely that the loss will be any higher. I do not think that there should be any question of a loss being allowed. I am certain that if this scheme were recast and looked into more carefully, the whole of this activity which is contemplated in Batter-sea Park could be carried out without any cost either to the ratepayer or the taxpayer. Therefore, I support most strongly the views that have been put forward that we have not been given enough information. We cannot be satisfied on the financial aspect of the provisions of this Bill, and the Government should be asked to look into the matter again.
There is a general point on which surely all hon. Members must be agreed; namely, that in view of the financial situation in which we find ourselves we must be careful not to create in people's minds


the thought that we in this House are in any way being guilty of any extravagance. This must be of considerable importance because right hon. Members opposite in responsible positions have, as we all know, repeatedly appealed to people to avoid extravagance in every way possible in their own personal lives. They are more responsible than the right hon. Gentleman the former Minister of Supply who, speaking in this Debate, said "When we get out of our little troubles we shall look back on these slight differences between the two sides of the House with regret." These are not little troubles. I feel that in the public mind there is considerable apprehension that the Government are carrying out something which is unnecessarily extravagant.
If this proposition could be made self-supporting, I believe that that criticism would be removed. It is with that in view, and without any desire to sabotage this Exhibition, that we approach this matter. As my right hon. Friend has said, we as a party are concerned with its success, but we have the right to criticise these sort of details which are before us in this Bill. Personal moderation and any suggestion of Government extravagance just do not go together. It is with that feeling in mind that I appeal to the Government to adopt this suggestion of ours and see if they can make the whole proposal self-supporting.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Macpherson: I support this Bill, which I hope will receive the unanimous approval of the House. Interest in the Festival of Britain, 1951, is growing not only throughout the country but, to an increasing extent, overseas. I am sure that millions of people who are looking forward to coming to visit the Festival will be very disappointed indeed if there is no fun fair, amusement centre, or garden festival, or whatever we like to call it. I am sorry that it has not been given its proper name. I should like it to be called a fun fair and have done with it, because that is what I hope and I am sure everyone else hopes it is going to be. I am sure that the average person visiting a great national Exhibition like this would think it a very dull affair indeed if there were no fun fair.
The object of the Festival is not only to stimulate our own people but to pre-

sent ourselves to the world in our true colours. The British people are not dull people. We are no more dull than we are unenterprising or decadent, as I am sure this Festival will demonstrate. Therefore, I welcome this decision to have a fun fair in Battersea Park. I should like to congratulate the Government on obtaining the services of that splendid administrator, Sir Henry French, of Ministry of Food fame, to be the chairman of the Festival Gardens Company.
I should like briefly to refer to Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill which deal with the arrangements in connection with river traffic, the provision of additional piers and landing stages on the river. Perhaps I had better declare my interest in this matter, which is this: I am responsible for promoting and organising the present scheme for water buses on the Thames, which has been running for the last two years. I have no financial interest in the matter, directly or indirectly, but I am chairman of what is called the Thames Passengers Services Committee set up by the Minister of Transport to encourage the use of the Thames for passenger boat purposes, to give Londoners and visitors to London the opportunity of enjoying and using their own grand old River Thames.
The Festival in London will be a riverside Festival, and the police and the traffic authorities have asked my Committee to provide augmented services of Thames water buses during 1951 to assist in handling the traffic problem which a great Exhibition like this in the centre of London will create. There will also be a big volume of traffic between the Exhibition proper on the South Bank and the fun fair in Battersea Park, which is also a river front. What is more natural than that the opportunity should be taken to use passenger boats to carry the people to and from these two parts of the Festival.
Regarding the boats, I am glad to inform the House that in a most public-spirited fashion all the passenger boat owners on the Thames with suitable craft, have formed themselves into an association and agreed to pool their boats in 1951 and place them under a form of river traffic control which will be set up to give a co-ordinated service during 1951.
It is obvious that if any material contribution is to foe made by the water buses to the Festival traffic problem, it will be necessary to have piers not only at the South Bank and Batter-sea Park but at other points up and down the river. The Port of London Authority have in the past been very good about this matter. We have the use of their regular piers, and they have also provided two new piers primarily for this service, one at Putney and the other at Charing Cross. But I want to assure the House that if we are to make any contribution towards solving this traffic problem of the Festival, additional piers will be required. Particularly shall we require piers at London Bridge, Blackfriars and Hammersmith. I hope that as a result of the financial provisions on this Bill these facilities will be provided. I believe that to the great majority of people a sail on the Thames will be one of the most enjoyable features of a visit to the Festival of Britain in London. We British people like the water; we like to be beside the water, whether it is on the river front or the seashore, and the arrangements we are making in this Bill to add the pleasure and usefulness of the River Thames to the attractions of the Exhibition, will, in my opinion, go a long way towards making it that success which we all hope for.

Mr. Braddock: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, if he is leaving it, and as such a lot of consideration has been given to this problem, can he tell us what the fare will be between Battersea and the Exhibition on the South Bank? How much will it be?

Mr. Macpherson: No, I cannot say tonight what the fare will be. We are waiting, first of all, for this Bill to pass and secondly, we shall have discussions with boat owners in order to agree on the fare. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that the fare will be reasonable, as the fares on the Thames water buses are today. Where in the world could you get greater pleasure at a lower price than that given by the 3d. stages on the Thames water buses today? One of the by-laws which the Minister of Transport is to make will provide for control of the fares, and we shall see that no advantage

is taken of the great public demand for these craft which will exist.
In conclusion, a really successful Exhibition, in addition to carrying out the purposes for which it was planned, should leave behind it something of permanent and lasting value. I quote for example the great Glasgow Exhibition of 1900, which left to my native city Kelvingrove Art Galleries, one of the great architectural and cultural features of Glasgow. May I also remind the House about the Eiffel Tower in Paris, a relic of a great Paris Exhibition.
The Festival of Britain, 1951, will not only provide us with a great exhibition of British genius and culture but it will leave behind things of great permanent value to our London and the nation—the development on the South Bank, the National Theatre and the concert hall. But I hope that the Festival of Britain will do something more than that. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) here tonight. I am sure that that great champion of Thames water buses and boats on our river will join with me in hoping that the Festival of Britain, 1951, will demonstrate the popularity and usefulness of passenger services on the Thames so that water buses will in future become a permanent and integral part of London transport.

5.54 p.m.

Sir Alan Herbert: I thank the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. T. Macpherson) very warmly for what he said and I congratulate him, and those working with him, as I have long wanted to do, on the great enthusiasm and success with which he has followed a cause with which I messed about in vain for a long time. I should like also to recall the name of Sir Samuel Instone, who for long years worked for this cause, long before I ever began—and also in vain. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor), who objected to the term "water buses" is not here now. I do not know whether he would prefer some phrase which slips easily off the tongue like "passenger transport vessel"; I gather he wanted some word with "boat" or "craft" in it. Well, he and the whole Navy will be familiar with the phrase "bum-boat" and the only thing I


can suggest is "bus-boat." But I think the term "water bus" is pretty good.
Apart from anything else, I am delighted to see Clause 7 in the Bill; and I hope these piers will be permanent additions to the amenities of London. On that point, Chelsea Reach, which runs alongside Battersea Gardens, is a famous reach. It was of this reach that Dibdin wrote (if my memory is correct):
Then farewell, my trim-built wherry!
Oars, and coat, and badge, farewell.
Never more, by Chelsea Ferry
Shall your Thomas take a spell.
It is in that reach that the race for Doggett's Coat and Badge still finishes. It was also in that reach that a porpoise passed under my stern in 1938 and, altogether, it is a very remarkable reach. I hope I shall be in Order, and I hope I shall not be guilty of a breach of confidence, if I mention one other scheme which shows that this Festival will not be all "merry-go-rounds." There has been a suggestion that there should be a kind of London Regatta—not for big boats, but for the sailing dinghies which are such a great feature all round the coast. It is suggested that every London club should have its own day, as they do at Cowes or Ryde. I think that would be rather a charming spectacle for the people walking about these gardens.
I do not think I need add very much more to the excellent speeches of the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Wilmot). Like them, I am proud to be on the council. I think we all started this job in rather a lukewarm way; for we did not know what it was all about. But the more we have heard about it and the more we have seen of it the more enthusiastic we have become. As an arch-enemy of noise, I should be the last person to approve anything that is going to make life hideous and horrible for the residents of Battersea and Chelsea, but the fact is, I am told, that the councils of both those boroughs have approved of the scheme and, therefore, presumably have been satisfied about that. I know that every precaution is going to be taken in that respect.
I must say I was rather sad to hear the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) suggest that he may divide

the House on this matter. I hope that need not happen. The other hon. Member who spoke for the Conservative Party, the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) mentioned many criticisms, which it was quite right he should offer, criticisms which very rightly may be pressed to Amendments in Committee. I do not think the hon. Member disclosed, however, whether he would vote for or against the Bill. I hope there will be many hon. Members of that party who will find that, on the whole, so long as honest criticisms are made and are considered, as they must be, they will not vote against this Bill, so that we may present a united front of the House towards this scheme. That will be a very pleasant thing.
May I say how disappointed I am at some of the talk in some of the papers—this very gloomy talk, with petulant letters saying, "What, after all, have we to celebrate?" Surely right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, at least, will agree that if, in 1951, we have survived five years of war and five years of His Majesty's Government, then even they will have something they will like to celebrate, to dance and sing about. "Faith," I think Mr. G. K. Chesterton said, "is the capacity to believe in that which is demonstrably untrue." If that is the only sort of confidence we have in our future, then let us have that.
I think there are other causes. I am no historian; but if the House will bear with me for one more minute, I will present another historical reason why we should celebrate, not only with the main Exhibition but with the arrangements set out in this Bill. After all. we are emerging from the murky 'forties into the 'fifties, and it has been pointed out to me by a better historian than myself that the 'forties have always been a pretty wretched sort of decade. A hundred years ago there were the Hungry Forties, with the whole of Europe in chaos and revolution, with the Communist manifesto, with crowned heads falling everywhere and rulers taking refuge in this, island, and with the Chartists massing on Kennington Common. However, after that period we emerged into what was almost the most prosperous, happy period in this country's history.
In the seventeen-forties, I think, we were at war with France, Spain—and


Scotland. A predecessor of mine in this House, Sir Charles Oman, records that when Charles Edward arrived at Derby
Panic prevailed in London, the King's plate had been sent on shipboard, the Bank of England had paid away every guinea of its reserves, and the citizens of London were fully persuaded that they would be attacked next day by 10,000 wild Scottish clansmen.
In the sixteen-forties there was civil war and King Charles I had his head cut off. In the fifteen-forties, I see "The time was a very evil one for England." King Henry VIII was marrying too many women, executing too many men, and persecuting everybody else. I need hardly add that we were at war with Scotland, and France as well; but the historian adds, rather woundingly, that "the French War was far more dangerous." In the fourteen-forties we had a weak king, King Henry VI. We were at war with France, and we were gradually losing everything King Henry V had won. In 1431 we had burned Joan of Arc—and our publicity on the Continent was not good. In the thirteen-forties we were at war with France, and the Scots invaded the North of England. Also, a small detail, there was the Black Death. In the twelve-forties we invaded France. In the eleven-forties we were ruled by an unpleasant woman called Matilda and there was civil war all the time. In the ten-forties we were invaded by the Danes.
Now, whatever else may be laid at the door of His Majesty's Government, we are not now at war with France or Scotland or even Denmark, and I do not think that we shall be in 1951, and my hope is that in some way we shall emerge from the nineteen-forties into the 'fifties in such condition that we shall be justified in celebrating. But if not, even if we are going down, it is not the habit of the British Fleet—and again I am sorry that the admiral, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington, is not here—to haul down the ensign when about to begin a doubtful engagement. On the contrary, each ship flies two or three to make sure that one shall be seen. It is in that spirit, I feel, that we ought to go forward with this bold, imaginative, attractive scheme, and show, whether we go up or down, that we can be gracious, gallant and gay.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I hope the hon. Gentleman the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the blacker details of our history, except to say that when this country emerges from the nineteen-forties into the brighter, happier 'fifties it will not on this occasion be entirely a matter of chance but as a result in some measure of the energies of a Labour Government.
I had hoped that this Debate today would begin with a measure of agreement on all sides of the House, at least on the basic principles of this Bill. Unfortunately, that has not been so. We listened amid an ever increasing gloom that formed over the House when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) was speaking for the Opposition; and in the course of those rather depressing remarks he asked one or two questions which, I have no doubt, the Lord President will reply to when he winds up, if he finds they are sufficiently relevant. However, I think the House will agree that the right hon. Gentleman's general reflections on the Bill were not in tune with public opinion in this country on this matter.
I want to detain the House for only a very few minutes to welcome wholeheartedly the Bill that is before us. I should like to congratulate the Government on resisting the pressure that has been put upon them to abandon this whole scheme of the Festival Gardens. I would welcome, in particular, this special amenity to which the terms of this Bill are addressed. There have been two main sources of opposition to these proposals, and, although I agree with neither of them, I think I have a certain sympathy with one source. I refer to the objection that comes from certain local interests representing people who frequent Batter-sea Park and who are fortunate enough to be able to enjoy the rest and peace that they find there in a sort of rural enclave in the midst of the noise and bustle and bricks and mortar of surrounding London. However, I think it is not asking too much to ask that those people should be prepared to make some small sacrifice for a limited period of their private pleasures to the wider public interest, and I think that, as the opposition for that source has


largely died down, that is just what they have decided.
The opposition mainly has come from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and theirs is a form of opposition with which I have no sympathy whatever. Some of them, I gather, are opposed to the whole idea of a Festival of Britain. They think that the time is out of joint. They feel that, despite the superlative efforts this country has made, because we still have to manage to bridge the dollar gap, we should go around in sackcloth and ashes, parading as penitents before the whole world.
We on these benches, particularly the Lord President of the Council, take a very different view. We are proud of the advances this country has made in the last 100 years, and, in particular, in the last five years, and we believe that we have something to show the world, and something that the world will be glad to see. Furthermore, I think there is no question about it that this Festival of Britain, and the Gardens which are to be a part of the Festival, will make a definite contribution to closing that dollar gap, and to increasing our dollar exports both visible and invisible.
It is against this proposal that the main fire has been directed from the benches opposite. Hon. Members opposite have always referred to this proposal as a fun fair, and they have used the words in such tones as if they were describing some extension of one of those deplorable and disreputable pin table saloons in the Charing Cross Road.
This proposal is nothing of the kind. I rather thought that in the interchanges that followed my right hon. Friends' statement on Wednesday of last week that the hatchet had been well buried, although I did observe at the time that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) again referred to the "fun fair" as one of the "frills" which he wanted my right hon. Friend to cut out. Today we have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport coming along in similar vein, complete with cold water and wet blankets.
This idea of an amusements section is traditional where great national exhibitions are concerned. I think it is a very good tradition, too. After all, if we are to

have a banquet, let us have the wine also. Do not let us be niggardly in the welcome we extend towards our guests. Obviously, there is no other suitable open space within reasonable access of the South Bank but Battersea Park. I am quite sure that the section of the park taken for this purpose will fill the bill admirably. When the visitor to the main Exhibition has had his fill of the more or less serious instruction he will be able to go aboard a river craft and in a few moments will be in the Festival Gardens, where he can get relaxation, and I hope, with all due deference to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson), refreshment.
I believe that the provisions of this Bill when translated into fact will make a considerable contribution to the attractiveness and gaiety of London—the London for which most of us feel a very deep affection. I hope that these proposals will play their part in enabling London once again to deserve that tribute of the Scottish poet William Dunbar, who 400 years ago sang:
London, thou art the flower of cities all!

6.11 p.m.

Air-Commodore Harvey: In this type of Debate speeches can be made very much in favour of the Exhibition and the Festival or against it, and I feel that on a matter such as this hon. Members should speak entirely for themselves. For that reason, I have avoided having any discussion with my own party on this subject and I am expressing my own views only.
I must say I thought the Minister of Transport would give us considerably more detail about what the revenue was likely to be—which surely has been worked out—and how we might come out of this financially. He hardly referred to it at all, if at all. He welcomed the improvements to transport which would come out of the Festival. Well, improvements, if thought necessary, can take place in any case. He went on to refer to the river buses. We all welcome improvements in this form of transport, and in this connection I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. T. Macpherson), whose speech was devoted almost entirely to river transportation, on the work he has


done in furthering these facilities on the Thames.
The Minister of Transport said that there is not to be interference with public sport. I recall that not so long ago mid-week football matches were cancelled because it was considered that people should concentrate on getting the country out of a very difficult economic situation. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Wilmot) spoke about our "little troubles." I am amazed that a right hon. Gentleman who has been a senior Minister in this Government should talk about our "little troubles." One of the real dangers today is that in some quarters those troubles are not sufficiently appreciated.
Obviously, this Festival is the Lord President's "baby." I have no doubt that this Bill will go through, as most Bills do, with the Government majority, and I wish it well, but I desire to place my views on record. We all know that as a general rule exhibitions lose money, and the guarantors are usually called upon to pay up. I see little reason why this Exhibition should be any exception. If it was to be a large trade exhibition, which would bring in money, I would support it up to the hilt; but I believe that the conception of this Festival at this time is quite out of place.
I do not want to stress the difficulties in my own constituency. I have heard various hon. Members refer to the housing conditions in their constituencies, and I know that many of them say there were ample opportunities to put it right before the war. However, I am concerned with the position today in the borough of Congleton, in my constituency. Last week there was brought to my notice the case of a married couple with five children living in one small bedroom. I therefore do not hold with spending all this money at this time on building to improve the South Bank when the housing programme is being cut. When hon. Gentlemen opposite say that public opinion is very much in favour of this Exhibition, I can only say that in the North-West of England public opinion is very much against it.

Mr. Braddock: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that before the Wembley Exhibition, which was supported by

his party, not only were people living in overcrowded conditions, but they were also underfed?

Air-Commodore Harvey: That is quite irrelevant to what we are discussing today. Conditions have gone on improving, and I hope they will continue to improve. Certainly more houses were being built between the wars than at the present time. I do not want to be diverted from my argument. The fact is that capital cuts are being made, and will continue to be made next year, and it seems quite incongruous that all this money should be spent in the next two years. A supreme effort must be made if this country is even to maintain its present standard of living, as has been indicated in recent speeches by Members of the Government.
It is agreed that less than 20 per cent. of Battersea Park is to be used as an amusement park, but I do not believe that the remaining 80 per cent. can continue as it was previously; there is bound to be untidiness, and the amenities of the park must to a large extent disappear for the period of the Exhibition. Furthermore, will the park be returned to the borough in its original condition? I do not think that Bellahouston Park in Glasgow, which was used for the 1937 Exhibition, was ever put back into its original condition. I wish this Exhibition well, but I should prefer to see the money spent on something which would bring in currency, preferably dollars, together with more houses, and not spent on this project so that the people of our country get the impression that we have money to spare for such a business. For that reason I regret it.

6.14 p.m.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I regret this fog of inspissated gloom which pours out from the Opposition benches, merely because they know in their hearts that they will not be in power when the 1951 Exhibition comes on. If they thought they were going to be in power, they would adopt an entirely different attitude towards this Exhibition. There has been a good deal of talk from the Opposition about their not trusting Government estimates, and about the rates that are to be charged in Battersea because of the amusement park. I understand there is talk of the rates going up 3s. because of the Festival amusement park; but as the L.C.C. have, I believe.
decided in no circumstances to spend more than £80,000, and as a penny rate brings in £250,000, all that the rates can possibly go up is a tiny fraction over a farthing. I therefore think that we might come back to more realistic estimates for the very fine Exhibition that we are to have, and I hope, as the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) said, that the Bill will go forward unanimously, without a Division.
One thing that I am concerned about is the talk of a "fun fair," not because I do not want an amusement park, but because a "fun fair," as it is continually described, will give the country quite a wrong impression of the sort of thing the Exhibition will be. I very much hope that it is to be something like the Tivoli in Copenhagen, or the parks in Malmo and in other of the Scandinavian countries. They certainly have their fun fair side, with switchbacks, and so on; but they also have most excellent entertainment of a very different kind. The last time I was in Copenhagen, I was in the Tivoli Gardens where I saw and heard a "Midsummer Night's Dream" most beautifully produced in Danish. I need hardly say I did not understand a word of it, but as I know it fairly well, that did not matter. It was a most delightful entertainment. At the same time, there was an extremely good classical concert going on in another part of the gardens. I hope that the Festival Gardens will be used for that kind of entertainment, as well as for the ordinary amusements that we get in an amusements park.
I should like to say a word about this type of entertainment. This is to be a memorial festival showing the progress that has been made during the last 100 years in Britain. In spite of the gloom opposite, and in spite of the fact that we have been through the two greatest wars in history, we have made enormous progress in many ways.

Mr. Shurmer: Especially in the last five years.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I quite agree. The progress that we have made in science, sociology and in all sorts of industrial ways will be depicted. We have also produced a great deal of very fine creative art of all kinds. We are going to demonstrate what has been happening in the past. I hope, however, that the Government will make

special arrangements to show the world what is being done in the present in some of the creative arts. I congratulate the Festival Committee, or whoever is responsible, on having already commissioned operas by well-known British men, such as Benjamin Britten, and on having also commissioned lesser musical works by other well-known British composers. These are all to be produced during the Festival for the world to hear what we can give in music. In addition, certain sculptures have been commissioned to be placed in the Festival Gardens in Battersea Park.

Mr. Braddock: I hope not by Henry Moore.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I do not know who they are by, but I know that they have been commissioned as representative of good art by men who are living today, and I suggest to the Government and to the Festival Committee that there are other kinds of creative art which should be represented. There is architecture. A number of struggling young architects are finding very special difficulty today in getting their feet even on the bottom rung of the ladder. This is due to the fact that it has been necessary to cut out a great deal of building, apart from houses to let and council houses which do not need separate architects. These young architects are not getting any opportunity to show what they can do.
The same thing is true of the visual arts. This is because of the economies necessary and because of the dollar difficulty which is running through the whole of British life. It is very difficult for young artists, men or women, to obtain a footing. I suggest that two things could very well be done. One is that young, struggling architects should be commissioned to submit plans for some of these temporary buildings, and show the world what they can do. It might be possible to have suitable competitions for them.
The same thing could be done in connection with the visual arts. I suggest that there might be competitions for murals to be placed in these temporary buildings; or better still, pictures that would not be actually painted on the walls, because that would mean their destruction when the temporary buildings were destroyed at the end of the Festival.
It should be perfectly possible to get pictures put up which would be like murals and which could be in the temporary buildings during the Festival and afterwards be put up permanently in public buildings. In this way, the Government would be able to show the world what young architects and young painters could do. It would give them a chance to create, either temporarily or permanently, works of art which would start them forward, and which, at the same time, might well be dollar earners.
Americans will come over here—and I say Americans especially because their money is so valuable at the moment—to see artistic productions, just as much as they will come to see our industrial achievements. They will give orders because they will want to have exhibitions in America, and this will be a very good way to help earn the dollars which will cut down any deficits there may be. I urge that creative art by living people should be fully represented, as well as that which has been produced during the last 100 years. Most of all, I sincerely hope that we shall go forward with our fine plans for this great Exhibition which will show the tremendous advances that we have made in the face of all difficulties during the last 100 years, and especially during the last five years.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Wilson Harris: It will be readily understood that I rise in a very chastened spirit this afternoon. I still bear indelibly printed on my personality the marks of the rebuke administered to me by the Lord President the other day, when I ventured to ask him who was really in favour of this Exhibition. He then implied, quite rightly as I recognise, from his totalitarian point of view, that to hold any opinions on this Exhibition other than those of the right hon. Gentleman was entirely illegitimate.
I have pondered the Lord President's observations, as I always do any observations that fall from his lips, with the result, which is a tribute equally to his persuasiveness and my openness of mind, that I have progressed, if I may put it so, from an atheist position to an agnostic position, and there is no knowing where I may end. I think that I have pene-

trated a little way into the Lord President's mind. I must say that I was surprised at some of the things I found there. I realise, I think, what it is that has commended this Exhibition to him. The "News Chronicle" took occasion this morning to remind its readers very forcibly that it was in the "News Chronicle" office that the conception of this Exhibition took place. I can quite understand the right hon. Gentleman with his almost ungoverned admiration for anything connected with the Press, adopting this idea undigested and swallowing it whole. Then, by one of those rare coincidences which often interest the House, the late editor of the "News Chronicle" being available for employment, employment was made available for him, with the result that, in the classic phrase of the right hon. Gentleman himself, a good time was had, if not by all, at any rate by some. The upshot of all this is, as I have tried to indicate, though I am always open to conviction, that I still remain a little unconvinced.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) that there is some lack of evidence of a wide public demand for this Exhibition, more particularly outside London; there is a strong feeling that the cost is such as should not be expended at a time like this; but my guiding principle being, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a profound conviction that in the last resort the Government must be right, I can assure him that I shall not be guilty of any aggressive opposition to this project.
To the speech of the Minister of Transport I will make no reference, except to say that I was a little startled by the way in which he announced an almost seismic constitutional revolution, when he spoke, almost in passing, of the creation of additional "peers" by private enterprise. That, of course, immediately took my mind back to 1911—

Mr. Barnes: Not "peers" but "piers."

Mr. Wilson Harris: I am extremely gratified to know that, as my mind had been gravely disturbed.
Let us return to the subject of Batter-sea Park, in regard to which atheism and agnosticism are having rather a hard


struggle in my mind. I am impressed by the argument put forward particularly by the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) in regard to Battersea Park. Like many other Members, I have a great affection for Battersea Park as it is, and it is a little difficult to be convinced that it is to be greatly improved by the changes projected. I cannot help feeling that if people are exhausted by their efforts as spectators below the river, they would be better refreshed in the sylvan glades of which the right hon. Member for Dept-ford (Mr. Wilmot) spoke so eloquently. However, if we are to have these recreations, then let us know what they are to be. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not associate himself with anything but pure, clean fun, and therefore we can be satisfied that all these amusements will be of an immaculate purity, at whatever sacrifice to attractiveness.
I do not wish to detain the House long, but, as it behoves one to make a positive contribution to a Debate, I will commend one suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. It will be remembered that some portion of Battersea Park was devoted last year to rather problematic statuary of different kinds. I would suggest that in order to provided a fitting emblem of that universal amity which the Government have been so successful in establishing, the right hon. Gentleman commission someone, preferably Mr. Henry Moore, to provide a statuary group of the Minister of Health embracing Lord Horder. That would have two advantages. It would attract all the innumerable friends and admirers of the Minister of Health, and it would attract all the innumerable friends and admirers of Lord Horder. If, moreover, the sculptor could recall to some extent the famous statue of Laocoon, and subtly suggest the idea of the Minister of Health struggling with a serpent—or conversely Lord Horder struggling with a serpent—the cup of public enjoyment would be filled to overflowing.
I still remain a little unconvinced about Battersea Park. I wish that the people who go on Wednesday to see the Exhibition down the river would take their recreation, as they well could do, on Thursday in some larger atmosphere than that of Battersea Park. At the same

time, I am convinced by some arguments which have been adduced in this Debate. I agree with the only other junior burgess present that it would be a pity if a Division were taken, if only because I should have to make up my mind into which Lobby to go. Therefore, having expressed regret that Battersea Park is not to be left to its sylvan glades, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am in the sort of frame of mind that he would be glad to reduce me to.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) has spoken about his convictions and has thrown doubt upon the proposals that are now before us. I do not gather very clearly where his enthusiasm lies after listening to the proposals he has made. It looked to me as if he were trying to pronounce his swan song on behalf of the university he represents, although I should be very sorry if judgment on the value of university representation had to be made on the contribution he has just made. There have been better occasions, and I would rather think of those better occasions when the hon. Member has made a more valuable contribution.
For myself, I am wholly convinced of the necessity for this Festival of Britain and of making it not too serious an affair. I agree that people must have their amusements, and that they will find their amusement in ways in which I should not find mine. I cannot lay down a rule as to what other people should do, although their practice, so far as I am concerned, may be a little unfortunate. Members will guess that there is one aspect of the matter to which I must make some reference. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. T. Macpherson) has told us that the British people like to be beside the water. I agree. Last year they spent £762 million in their efforts to be beside the water—a water infused with alcohol—and I should imagine from their complaints that it was not so much alcohol as water.
Instead of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) complaining about the expenditure on this Exhibition because of the dreadful homes he mentioned needing attention, he should join with me in my protests about the tremendous waste that


goes on in reference to alcoholic beverages. I gather that the noble Lady the hon. Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) is under the impression that I am quite wrong in assuming that there will be many alcoholic beverages in this so-called fun park. I can only find guidance on the point from certain arrangements that have already been published. Although the Government have not had any forthright opposition from me to the provision of such entertainment as people desire, I hope they will take into account the fact that there is general agreement, not only among teetotallers like myself, about the necessity for caution. They should be more cautious about the provision of alcoholic drinks than the Minister showed signs of being when I interrupted him a little while ago.
My right hon. Friend is under the impression that this provision is necessary. If he thinks that, I have no doubt that he will rush headlong into such provision, but we should be extremely careful. We have been advised by many Parliamentary committees and Royal Commissions to proceed with the greatest caution in this question of the provision of alcoholic drinks. I should like to know whether the licensing restrictions on the sale of alcohol in this so-called amusement park will be the same as those applied in connection with other forms of entertainment? I rather gathered that no deep thought had been given to this question. I do not know whether the opinion of magistrates has been asked about the provision of more intoxicants, when such provision already exists close to Battersea Park.
Recently, the Home Secretary quashed a provision which had existed for years in Kensington as a result of the expressions of opinion of Kensington magistrates, who said that drinking facilities should end at 10 o'clock at night. After he had been told about the journeyings across Battersea bridge—precisely where the new fun fair is to be—he found it necessary to take away from Kensington the facilities they had secured for themselves, so that Battersea people would be persuaded to get their drinks in their own area. It would be a retrograde step if the Government were to assist in the provision of more drinking facilities in that area.
I have no desire whatever to cramp this excellent scheme. I think we have the right to rejoice about the progress which we have made in recent years. I, personally, rejoice also at the great progress made in the last 100 years, during which the temperance movement has been in existence. The gin palace is not as universal as it was and the evils associated with drink are not as bad as they were. But there can be mistakes and carelessness and it is because I do not feel that the Minister has a proper understanding of the situation that I have addressed to him these few cautionary remarks. I hope the company which will be responsible for this scheme will watch this matter with the utmost care. In spite of all the glory of this scheme, which I want to see in all its fullness, any carelessness will turn it into something far short of its high expectations.

6.46 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Hon. Members opposite and the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George), who spoke one hundred per cent. for the Liberal Party, have been telling us all the afternoon that we on this side of the House are intent upon killing the joys of the people. That is far from being the case. The Minister, because of his wholly inadequate speech, put us in an intolerable position and it was right of my right hon. Friend to say that we could not determine whether we would carry our opposition to a vote until we had been given further and more satisfactory assurances. Only as the Debate has developed has the House been given any information at all about this project.
I listened with interest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. Wilmot). I almost wished he was a Minister again, as his expository powers were far greater than those displayed by the Minister of Transport. The Minister gave no estimate of the number of people who would come to this Festival from abroad or the Provinces or from London itself; he produced no plan or layout; and we do not know what services are to be given. It was only as the Debate developed that we began to hear that there is something attractive about the scheme. I take the view that the Festival must be treated as a whole, and that if


we are to spend a large sum of money on its architectural and exhibition side, we must cater for the lighter side of public life.
I am only too willing to see the Bill passed if we can have the assurances we require. After all, it is the constitutional duty of the Opposition to test Government projects from the point of view of finance and on other grounds. We are not being killjoys; we are performing our constitutional function. I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply, whether we can have more detailed information about the finances of this project. The other day the right hon. Gentleman, in adumbrating some details of the main project, said that its capital cost would be written off in three years of Parliamentary Votes. I will not speak about that tonight, because we are on this narrower issue, but is that really the case, or are we to have a properly financed capital project amortised year by year out of current expenditure? If it is the latter, it will be a much lighter burden on the taxpayers. But I rather fear that the Government, who are very loose about money, will provide this loan expenditure out of public money in the first year or two and trust to luck that there will be something coming in at the end out of the amusement park and whatever is to be established there to refund the amount.
I should like to see some token reduction of the whole project made to meet the situation which undoubtedly exists with regard to our finances, the grave shortages in our economy and the appalling conditions under which many of our people are living. It appears to me that the architects of this project have been given an absolute carte blanche and have drawn up plans and presented the Government with an estimated financial sum which has been put in the Bill and brought before the House of Commons. I wish to be assured that that is not the case and that considerable cuts have already been made by the Government before the sums mentioned in the Bill were fixed, in order to satisfy the people in the country who feel greatly disturbed about this project.

Mr. Wilmot: As the noble Lord is making such a constructive contribution may I remind him that a few days ago the Lord President of the Council came

to the House and explained in great detail the reductions in the estimates which had been made as a result of the economic situation?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: That reduction related to the main site. It is not clear that the same has been done in regard to these Festival Gardens. I should like to have an assurance that the same principle of making a suitable cut to meet the circumstances of the time, runs right through the whole project. If we can be told that that is the case, I am sure the House will feel more satisfied that it has done hitherto.
There are one or two other matters to which I should like to refer. Considerable exemptions are laid down in Clauses 4, 5 and 6. I will not go into them in detail, but I wish to have an assurance from the Government that these exemptions will not be used to give what one might call an undue preference to these Festival projects. For example, will the licensing laws as regards drink be relaxed for the Festival project? I am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing, West (Mr. J. Hudson) will be interested to know. Will Entertainments Duty on certain of these amusement features be relaxed so that other concerns in London competing in the same field will be forced to compete disadvantageously? I should like to know whether there is anything in Clauses 4, 5 or 6 which gives the Festival organisation any undue preference in trading. If there is, it should be justified to the House.
I should also be grateful for an assurance that the fun fair part of the Festival Gardens will not last longer than a year. There is some doubt about that. In some places these more amusing features have been put down on exhibition sites and have been allowed to remain for a considerable time beyond the projected period. I should like to have an assurance that such features will be removed and that the gardens will be restored as they were, subject to the permanent buildings, which many of us agree will be an attractive feature, remaining after the Exhibition closes.
With reference to the re-designing of the gardens, like my right hon. Friend I hope that the buildings that are to be put down on the site will be sited in accordance with a plan which fits into the ultimate design. I imagine that will


be quite easy to do. If the architects have in mind an ultimate plan for these gardens, it will be quite easy to site the restaurants and permanent buildings where they will be in the ultimate plan, and to fit in the amusement section accordingly. I gather that the amusement section is to cover only 20 per cent. of the acreage. If that is the case, it may mean that the permanent buildings will all be concentrated in the remaining four-fifths. I should like to know whether that is the case and whether those buildings will be sited with the long-term plan in mind?
The only other comment I have to make is that agreement to this project can be obtained in this House only if it is to commemorate a hundred years of British industrial life. If it is that, it may be a great feature to be classed with the 1851 Exhibition and may even transcend the Wembley Empire Exhibition of 1924. But if hon. Members opposite are to go around the country claiming that this is in any way a commemoration of the last five years of their disastrous Government, then they will not get all-party agreement and they will not get the country to appreciate it in the non-party spirit which is required.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Sargood: The Debate has ranged over a wide field and has covered most of the points that could usefully be made, so I shall not weary the House by repeating any of them. I feel, however, that some reply should be made to the statements made by the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare), who I regret is not here. A reply should be made to him if only because he takes a very active part in the affairs of London. Therefore, I should like to make it clear to the House that he does not speak for the London County Council, who have clearly indicated that they support this scheme and are enthusiastically backing it. Only yesterday, they again had an opportunity at their meeting to test feelings, and they again indicated that they were behind the Government in their efforts to make this Festival a success.
The hon. Member does not speak for the Battersea Borough Council. They have indicated very clearly that they are supporting the proposals which have been made, particularly in relation to Battersea

Park. Although I know that great political efforts have been made to reverse that decision, nevertheless the Borough Council have clearly indicated that they are supporting this scheme.
The other people on whose behalf we are entitled to speak are the whole of the people of London. The Festival of Britain was made an issue in the recent L.C.C. by-election in North Kensington. It was made a very fierce issue there, and the people, as represented by the electors of North Kensington, made it clear that they support the Government in their proposal to go on with this scheme.
The hon. Member made a great point of objecting that the L.C.C. should be called upon to perform work on behalf of the Government, and he instanced the building of the Embankment wall and the reclamation of the foreshore. The House should appreciate that that scheme was envisaged long ago, and it was in any event the intention of the L.C.C. to do that work as part of their South Bank scheme. They are merely anticipating, by doing that work in conjunction with this Festival.
There is one other very serious challenge which should be met and answered. I am glad to see that the hon. Member is now in his place. He made a point of the great need for housing and of the fact that we are using building labour and housing material for the purpose of this Festival. That is a challenge that we ought to meet. I propose to indicate first of all that, as is well known, a quantum of building labour and material has been earmarked for buildings other than houses. It is not desirable that we should devote all of it to housing, however great the need may be, because there are other types of building which are necessary. The amount required for the Festival of Britain will be taken from that which is earmarked for purposes other than housing.
I could have found it in my heart to have a greater respect for the expressions of opinion of the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) and his hon. Friends, in their concern for housing, if they had protested about the use of building labour and material for luxury building. No objection has been raised to the use of building labour and materials for that kind of luxury building


that we see around the West End of London and elsewhere.
I remind the House that this matter of housing in relation to the Festival of Britain was an issue in the North Kensington London County Council by-election. The Conservative opposition took full advantage of the opportunity to sway public opinion against the Labour candidate, but the people clearly indicated by the way in which they cast their votes that they were behind the Government in this proposal. I hope that the Government will go on with their scheme and make it as attractive as possible. The Opposition have expressed great fear about the Festival of Britain, but the real fear they have is the one to which they have not given tongue—that the project will be a very great success.

7.2 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I do not intend to detain the House for very long, but there is one matter to which I should particularly like to call attention, and which ought to be borne in mind. It is that the finances of the scheme require considerable scrutiny. It is the duty of the Opposition, while being quite friendly to the general principles of the scheme, to point out where they think money is likely to be lost. Money is bound to be lost, and is apparently being budgeted for as a loss, in connection with the fun fair at Battersea. I regretted to hear my noble Friend the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) say that he wished to see the Government shut down the fun fair gardens at the end of one year. I believe that is entirely the wrong thing to do.
If we want this venture to be a success, as I think we all do, we must look at the finances. We are to spend £637,000 upon an amusement park. Nobody outside Bedlam could imagine that we should ever get a return of that expenditure in the very short period of an English summer. It is utterly impossible, if we consider the financial side of the matter. Let us not bind ourselves to pulling it all to pieces at the end of 12 months. I believe that a great many people, provided that the amusement park does not make noises, will find a great deal of interest and amusement in it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who said that the history of every exhibition was that the amusement side usually carried on afterwards.
Of course it does, because people are amused by it. If the thing is badly run or stupidly conceived, it will not be a success. If it is properly run the people will like it. It will not do any harm and the taxpayer will not lose money. We have to be sensible about it.
We do not want an extremely stupid financial scheme, but I believe that this is a stupid financial scheme. I believe that the Government are trying to get the best of both worlds. They can never do that. If they are going to shut the amusement park down at the end of 12 months they will lose £350,000 for an absolute certainty, money which I believe could be regained if the life of the place were spread over three years. My own feeling is: Do not let us be too emphatic about shutting it down. Let us see whether it is useful. If it is going to create a nuisance to the people living in the district, it will have to be shut down on those grounds, but if the Government and the exhibition authorities are to be successful in maintaining this amenity they will have to make it attractive. Do not let the taxpayer suffer. Let him get a return for the investment.
My grandfather happened to be concerned in the 1851 Exhibition in a somewhat intimate way. I was looking up some of his papers, and I found that all the arguments which are being used about taking up a bit of Battersea Park are exactly the same as those used in those days about Hyde Park. [An HON. MEMBER: "They did move the place afterwards."] Not at the time. The original buildings were put up on a site exactly opposite Knightsbridge Barracks. They were afterwards moved to Sydenham.
Our forefathers were rather cleverer than we are. The contractor who had the job of making and laying the floor it was done by private enterprise—came to the management and asked whether the space between the boards could be increased by 1½ inches. In those days ladies did not wear the sort of heels they do now and they would be able to walk about on this floor, although the cracks in it were considerable. The exhibition authorities agreed to the suggestion, on the understanding that they could let, by contract to another firm, at a very advantageous rate, the right to keep anything which fell through the cracks. So much fell through the


cracks at the Crystal Palace that it actually paid for the whole of the timber of which the floor was made. I do not think it would do so today, when timber is much more expensive.
In regard to the gardens I should like to emphasise what the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) has said. I trust that the floral aspect of the gardens will be in very good hands, as I understand it is. I ask the Government to consider whether it would not be advisable to arrange definitely for a pier at Kew. Kew Gardens are unique and are famous throughout the world. We cannot produce in Battersea Park what we have at Kew. If we could have a boat service running at the right state of the tide from the Exhibition to a properly made pier at Kew, that trip would be not only profitable, but educational, and it would do a good service to Kew.
Equally, downstream, I trust that steps will be taken to bring the Maritime Museum into the picture. It is one of the finest museums in the country. It has had a great struggle to get going, and the people in charge of it have done all they can to make it into an exhibition. It has more British history enshrined in it than almost any other exhibition. It has recently acquired a great many relics of naval successes and explorations. I see no mention at all of facilities to be given in connection with such matters, and I beg that steps should be taken to help the public to have access by water, upstream to Kew and downstream to Greenwich. Nothing would give foreigners a better impression of Britain than that kind of thing.
In conclusion, I enter one plea about these boats on the river. I know a little about the steamers of the river. Some of them are very suitable for this sort of business and some are not. Some are extremely cranky. We do not want to run any risks. The whole success of the scheme depends upon the sort of summer we are going to get. We shall not make a very great deal of money outside the amusements, but at any rate we can convey people without their getting soaked, if we pay proper attention to the type of vessels which are licensed. It will be a great disaster if vessels are licensed which are what we

call "cranky" or liable to capsize, or ship a great deal of rain. This can be avoided if the boats are properly hooded. We must remember that we get difficult currents and breezes on the river, which make coming alongside very difficult unless the boats are properly designed. The Minister of Transport may remember that in connection with the French Exhibition on the Seine, there was a disaster due to the fact that the type of boat used was not particularly good, and that it had to be rectified.
I wonder if the attention of the Lord President can be directed to a promise which he gave me months ago in regard to Queen's Hall. Queen's Hall has a great position in the concert world. I was very anxious from the inception of the South Bank scheme that the erection of the concert hall there should not be allowed to stop the reconstruction of Queen's Hall. Queen's Hall requires a similar amount, and if the amount to be spent on a concert hall and other things will stop that work, I hope the Minister will reconsider it.
I believe that the Exhibition will attract people not only from the United States, but from the whole of the British Empire. If that is so I hope that one thing will be borne in mind in connection with the restaurants. We should remember that our system of feeding may not be exactly acceptable to those who are good judges of food, and, leaving aside the question of drink, it is of the very utmost importance that we should really try to cater for people who have good taste so that they do not go away saying, "It was all right, except that the way they cook cabbage in England is appalling."

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Williams: Like many other hon. Members, I have had a very open mind about this Bill, but since hearing the Minister of Transport this afternoon, I am convinced that it is our duty to vote against it. If the Minister could have told us that by losing perhaps £100,000 on the project in Battersea Park we should thereby gain millions of pounds in increased takings at our cinemas, cafes, theatres and so on, or that we should gain enormously increased trade through attracting industrialists here, he might have convinced some of us that it was worth while spending the money. But he did nothing of the sort.
I am not one of those who have lost confidence in the country, as the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) suggested some hon. Members have done. I believe that we shall pull through all our troubles in spite of the Socialist Government, but unless we "pull in our horns" seriously we shall make the crisis last very much longer. The noble Lady must realise that we are living in very exceptional times. Gaiety does us a lot of good and we shall do our work better if we are gay, but if the noble Lady were on the verge of bankruptcy she would not organise a dance in her own house—she would say, "No, I have to seek my recreation somewhere else." In these hard times when the country is on the verge of bankruptcy we should be content with other amusements which we already have.
There is no doubt that in spite of what has been said from the other side, the people want houses more than they want switchbacks. This is a sincere thought of mine. People will be very sore if they think that they could have had houses when the Government were building fun fairs or amusement parks on which the Londoners can spend their money. I do not believe that the Battersea Park arrangement will attract the foreigner, but it will attract scores of people from all over England and from Scotland and I am not so sure that we want all those people. The Minister of Transport wants them to swell his railway receipts, but I am not sure that the railway carriages, the theatres, the hotels, and so on can stand it. I believe it is a great mistake to encourage the British people to crowd the capital when I do not believe it will encourage the foreigners who are coming over for the industrial side.
I would not oppose the Bill so much just because it is possible that we would lose £100,000 on the enterprise, but I oppose it because £770,000 is being spent on it and it is using cement, steel, timber and labour which should be used in these hard times for other purposes. An argument that has been put forward is that Battersea Park is necessary in order to divide up the crowd and that the police need an overflow from the main Festival, but I believe that having a fun fair in Battersea Park will make the crowd problem ten times worse because hundreds of thousands more people will be coming to London and overflowing from the fun

fair into the main Exhibition, thus making the problem worse.
On looking through a little booklet about the Festival of Britain, I notice that there are all sorts of committees for architecture, art, films and industry, but as yet there is no committee for the fun fair itself. Perhaps the Minister will explain why that is so, or whether there will be one a little later on. Clause 1 (1) says:
The County Council may enclose any lands in Battersea Park not exceeding in the aggregate forty acres in area.
They can also execute works thereon. I hope the Government will not pull down trees or alter shrubs in connection with building operations.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan) indicated assent.

Mr. Williams: I see that the Government do not intend to do so and I will not continue with that point, but I should like to say some more about trees and shrubs. It is a tradition that Englishmen love their flowering trees and shrubs, and I hope that the county councils will carry out the suggestion of the Government to plant trees and shrubs all over the country. Trees and shrubs are far better than bunting. They are an investment which brings in dividends in the yearly bloom and has a certain capital appreciation through the annual growth which is made.
I was interested to hear the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) that Kew Gardens should be added to the Festival. That has been in my mind for some time and I have been particularly anxious to speak about it tonight. Nothing is more akin to the tradition and heritage of the English people as garden lovers than Kew Gardens. Other countries have cathedrals and pictures, and no doubt the people who come to this country will look at our cathedrals and pictures, but no country in the world has such a wonderful panorama and exhibition of trees and shrubs, such as rhododendrons, azaleas, magnolias and cherries, as Kew Gardens. Adding it to the Festival programme will involve no expenditure whatever. It is all laid on there, even the turnstiles and the refreshment places: no building will be required, no


alterations will be necessary and not a penny of expenditure will be needed It will be the right time of the year because the rhododendrons will be at their best, and we shall be proud for the foreigners to see not only the trees and the shrubs but also the naturalised flowers and the wild flowers for which Kew is also famous.
I make the proposal that we should have a Festival of Horticulture. Horticulture has been one of the proudest achievements of Englishmen throughout the centuries. It is only a few minutes more upstream to Kew in the water buses. Running the water buses there will help to solve the problem of the crowds. Kew can hold hundreds of thousands of people. If Kew took a section of the crowd, it would help to solve the crowd problem and at the same time we should be proud that the foreigners could see the history of England in horticulture, nobly achieved by generations of Englishmen. I sincerely ask the Minister to bring this about.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: I am sure the House will have listened with attention to the speech, particularly to the last point, made by the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) and I would like later to say something which bears on the same point. Had it not been for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I should have wanted to mention a number of other connected matters which are not specifically mentioned in the Bill, but, in view of your Ruling, I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes.
I must start by saying that, of course, my enthusiasm for this project would have been a little greater had the county mentioned been Middlesex and not London and had the park been Chiswick Park and not Battersea Park.
I turn now to the more serious side of the Debate, and say quite frankly that I have been very much shocked and surprised by the dismal gloom coming to us from the benches opposite. I hope that at least the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), when he winds up for the Opposition, will do us the favour of telling us precisely what is the policy of himself and his colleagues on this matter. We are

getting used to the idea that they do not have clear views on major issues, but we felt that on this issue at least they might speak with a united voice.
Is the policy of the Opposition that which we heard from the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), that he approves of the Festival, but disapproves of the Battersea Park scheme? Is it represented by the views of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) and the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot)—and may we ask why they are not present at this Debate? I understand that as members of the Council of the Festival of Britain they have made no objection whatever to the scheme we are discussing at present. Is their absence explained by the fact that the right hon. Member for Southport warned them of what he was going to say and that they thought it wiser and more discreet not to be here?
Or is the policy of the Conservative Party that of the hon. Member for Wood-bridge (Mr. Hare), who wants this scheme but not in its present form, or of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) who wants a Festival of Britain, but of an entirely different kind from that which we have been discussing in this and previous Debates? Finally, is the policy of the Conservative Party that which we have heard very often from the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)—who is absent and has been missed in this Debate—who has persistently said he does not want any Exhibition, or Festival, or any celebration at all? We might be told by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames precisely what is the official view of the Opposition on this question.
I was interested in some of the criticisms in the speeches from hon. Members opposite, because they remind one very forcibly of many of the things which were said 100 years ago, when the Prince Consort and his friends had critics of the Exhibition held at that time. One hon. Member, who sat on the benches opposite 100 years ago, complained about the holding of the Exhibition in Hyde Park and said that people living in the area
would be well advised to keep a sharp look out after their silver spoons and the forks … and their maidservants


and went on to make a number of violent complaints about the way in which the tone of that area would be lowered. The criticisms were so extraordinary that the King of Prussia apparently took fright and wrote asking the Prince Consort whether it would be safe to allow his relatives to visit the Exhibition. The Prince Consort replied as follows:
Mathematicians have calculated that the Crystal Palace will blow down in the first strong gale, Engineers that the galleries would crash in and destroy the visitors; Political Economists have prophesied a scarcity of food in London owing to the vast concourse of people, Doctors that owing to so many races coming into contact with each other the Black Death of the Middle Ages would make its appearance as it did after the Crusades; Moralists that England would be infected by all the scourges of the civilised and uncivilised world; Theologians that this second Tower of Babel would draw upon it the vengence of an offended God.
The Prince Consort finished his letter by saying:
I can give no guarantee against these perils, nor am I in a position to assume responsibility for the possibly menaced lives of your Royal relatives.
I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies he will be able to give a slightly more encouraging answer to some of the criticisms levelled today than the Prince Consort was able to give to the King of Prussia a hundred years ago.
Turning to the Bill itself, I am sure that, the great majority of Londoners and the great majority of future visitors to the Exhibition will welcome both the gardens and the fun fair. I hope the gardens will be of the very highest quality we can produce in this country. I think it is clear from the names of those who are to supervise the work that they will be. I hope they will be an encouragement to boroughs, organisations and private people all over England to vie with the gardens at Battersea in brightening up their own parks, their own streets and their own gardens. I hope something of the work done all over England and in relation to the landscape gardens in Battersea Park will brighten some of the drearier parts of this country for many years to come.
Perhaps because I have not reached the age and discretion of some hon. Members, I also hope that the fun fair will be a very good fun fair. I hope there will be big roundabouts and switchbacks which run at great speed and "dodgems" and other

things which I enjoy and which I am sure many other people, having seen the more serious exhibits on the site on the South Bank, will also want to enjoy. Although it is only to be a small feature, I am sure some of my hon. and right hon. Friends, whom I once saw disporting themselves in a similar establishment, will share my point of view.
I was interested in the points made about Kew Gardens by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), to whom I always listen with very great respect, and the hon. Member for Tonbridge. I would put in a local plea, although it is not only local, that if we are to have piers higher up the river, there should be one at Chiswick. I dare say some of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench have heard me express the hope before, but I repeat now that I hope that Chiswick will play a part in the Festival of Britain. I am sure my constituents would welcome an extension of the river bus service up the river and I very much hope that a pier will be provided for them. Might I also suggest that if the water buses are to run up the river past Battersea Park, it would be well worth considering extending the service down the river so that visitors should not only be able to see the Maritime Museum, but also have an opportunity of making tours around the Port of London. The Port of London is unique in the world, and is a very vital part of our life and economy; and such a facility would be welcomed by many visitors, not only from foreign countries, but from other parts of Great Britain as well.
In this Debate, a great deal has been said about the financial aspects of the Festival. The hon. Member for Ton-bridge could probably, if he had reflected, have answered most of the questions he put, which I expect will be dealt with by the Lord President of the Council. It is quite clear that the Festival, and the particular part which we are discussing now, are not going to show a profit; but it is equally clear that it will give a stimulus to the tourist trade, and should also give stimulus to our export trade which, in the end, will make this venture a very sound financial effort. After all, it has always been the purpose and achievement of exhibitions of this kind in other countries to give a great stimulus to industrial and business activities of the


countries concerned. Concerning the finances of the Festival Garden in Batter-sea Park, may I ask my right hon. Friend to think again and, if during 1951 this venture is a great success and looks as if, if it were extended for another 12 months or so, it would recover the losses, to consider keeping it open for a few more months. It may be that visitors to London will have become used to the new amenities of Battersea Park and will enjoy them, and that an extension of the fair for another year or two might help to meet the deficit which is expected.
I am sure that the great majority of people in this country welcome not only the proposal we are discussing but the great effort of which it is a part. We look forward to a time when we can not only show the rest of the world what we have achieved during the past hundred years, but when we can look around and enjoy ourselves a little also. I do not believe that the charges of extravagance which have been made can be sustained, and I am sure that when the Exhibition is over, the critics who have today been attacking my right hon. Friends will feel very much as the critics who attacked the Prince Consort a hundred years ago felt, after the overwhelming success of the first Great Exhibition in 1851.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that the House admires the adroitness with which the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) succeeded in introducing into a discussion on the subject of certain works to be done at Battersea a discussion about certain works which are not to be done at Chiswick. That adroitness will entitle him to be acquitted, as certain of his hon. Friends certainly cannot be acquitted, of a failure to understand the Bill which we are discussing.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: The hon. Member is perhaps a little unwise in talking about works which are not to be done at Chiswick. I should advise him not to be too sure about that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member may have information on that subject, but there is no authorisation for those works in this Bill. The hon. Member must not be so sensitive when I seek to convey,

I assure him, a perfectly sincere compliment on his adroitness in Parliamentary manoeuvring. I conveyed him that compliment because I felt it was clear from that adroitness that he, at any rate, had appreciated as certain of his hon. Friends certainly had not appreciated, the limited scope and character of the Bill.
The Ruling which you, Sir, gave from the Chair at the beginning of the Debate was that we were here concerned not in general with the Festival of Britain, not even with the general doctrine whether cakes and ale were a good thing or a bad thing or whether they had been put in larger or shorter supply by Governments in the past; the only issue with which the House on this Bill is directly concerned is with regard to the proposed addition to the general scheme for the Festival of Britain which the Bill would authorise in Battersea Park. I propose to address my remarks to that limited issue.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick sought to elicit what was the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the whole wider question. I do not know whether the hon. Member was in the House when my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) a few days ago clearly stated the position of himself and his right hon. and hon. Friends. He then made it clear, as I know the Lord President will recollect, that we favoured the continuance in all the circumstances of the Festival of Britain in general, but that we reserved our right to criticise individual and, if it so appeared to us, excessive or extraneous items. It is in the spirit of that statement of the point of view of my right hon. and hon. Friends that I hope the remaining stages of the Debate will continue, and I hope that the Lord President will not be tempted to stray into wider and, perhaps, more ebullient discussion of the whole issue of the Festival of Britain.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): What is the hon. Gentleman getting so sticky about?

Mr. Noel-Baker: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not—

Mr. Noel-Baker: I want to make a serious point.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not giving way again. The noble Lady the Member


for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) when speaking, as she informed us, on behalf of, although in the complete absence of, her hon. Friends—I imagine they are going about the country seeking to dissuade their candidates from standing at by-elections, which no doubt accounts for their absence—indicated that she regretted that anybody should criticise and attack the Bill, on which she thought there should be national unity. I do not know whether the noble Lady thinks of national unity as involving the servile acceptance by hon. Members in all parts of the House of each and every proposal that is put forward on behalf of the Government, however extravagant or inappropriate those proposals may be. I do not so regard national unity, although it is fair to the noble Lady to point out that her hon. Friends during the years 1929 to 1931 gave a pretty good performance of national unity as so described. [Laughter.] It ill becomes hon. Gentlemen opposite to express ingratitude for those favours which they had in the past and which one day they may want in the future.
The noble Lady's theme of national unity simply will not bear examination unless hon. Members are prepared to accept that whatever is put forward, however inadequately presented by Ministers of the Crown, must be accepted without criticism and without demur. I am certainly not prepared to accept that attitude, even if this proposal had been clearly described and argued by the Minister of Transport. It certainly was not, and in the course of my remarks I shall draw attention to several notable omissions from the argument of the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the Bill. I would like at this point to say a word about one or two of the specific provisions of the Bill itself.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Before the hon. Member—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have already given way once to the hon. Member and in view of the character of his intervention then, I do not think there is any necessity for me to do so again.
When the House considers Clause 4, to which, it is fair to say, the Minister of Transport did make some reference, it will be seen that the individual citizen who happens to have the good or bad

fortune to live in the neighbourhood of these proposed works is thereby deprived of a very large part of his legal rights. The right hon. Gentleman gave no studied argument in favour of so doing, but I should have thought it was a generally accepted proposition that the individual rights of the individual citizen should not be taken away without good cause being shown to the House of Commons. The right to obtain an injunction is taken away from the injured citizen and all that is left is the right to proceed for damages for any loss suffered.
I do not understand the reason for this proposal. The House will be aware that the judges of the High Court never in practice grant an injunction where damages would be a sufficient remedy; that is the accepted rule. Therefore, what we are doing, if we pass Clause 4, is to deprive without compensation citizens who may well be injuriously affected of certain of their legal rights. It is important for those of our citizens—and they are many—who live in the immediate vicinity of these proposed works to appreciate that they will be deprived by the Bill of the right to secure an abatement of a nuisance from which they may suffer, although other citizens affected by other works done by private companies will still retain those rights at law.
It is interesting to note that Clauses 5 and 6 exclude most of the law as it affects the ordinary citizen who desires to build. It is a little singular that when this Government are seeking to do something in which they are really interested, their first step is to sweep away those planning restrictions which they have imposed upon the private individual and the private citizen who desires to build. While I do not quarrel with them in the necessity for so doing, I hope they will bear in mind that, if it is necessary for them to do so in this case, it is some indication of the hardships and handicaps which in other cases they impose upon the individual citizen and the individual builder.
I desire, however, to take up this matter on a slightly more important basis than the mere removal of rights from the citizen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I must confess I should be surprised if hon. Members opposite regarded the removal of rights from the individual citizen as a matter of such triviality as


not to merit discussion in the House of Commons. I have so far wholly failed to understand how the proposals of this Measure can be fitted—or, to use the fashionable word, integrated—into the policy of His Majesty's Government.
There has been speech after speech from the other side, such as that of the hon. Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) pointing out how nice it would be if various things could be done, for instance, if artistic endeavour could be stimulated, if lovely flowers could be laid out, if elaborate roundabouts could be installed. That is an easy line of argument because it does not pass the capacity of any hon. Member to outline many proposals which would be beneficial and which would give pleasure. Hon. Members, however, are only too well aware from the frequent observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that is not in these days the only criterion which can be applied. It seemed to me not without significance that the Minister of Transport made no reference either to the financial proposals of the Bill or as to how those proposals could be fitted into the declared financial policy of His Majesty's Government.
Indeed, the Minister went further. In an interesting observation he indicated that he thought it desirable that travel inside this country should be stimulated. No doubt he had in view the parlous position of the Railway Executive, but is that a declaration of the policy of His Majesty's Government? We have heard again and again in this House, and on the B.B.C., appeals by Ministers of the Crown to private citizens to limit their expenditure as far as possible, and to put into savings the money thereby not spent. That is what I understood to be the policy of His Majesty's Government. Is the indication which the Minister of Transport gave today, that His Majesty's Government desire to stimulate and increase pleasure travel or unnecessary travel, a declaration made on behalf of His Majesty's Government? If it is, I hope the Lord President will deal with this matter.

Mr. H. Morrison: I want to go as wide as I am permitted, but the hon. Member is provoking me to go into the economics

of the railway system after he and his hon. Friends have insisted on this being a narrow Debate. One rule for the Opposition and another for the Government is not so good.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I never thought there was any grave danger of being unfair to the Lord President and he will no doubt recall that one of the arguments adduced at that Box by his right hon. Friend in favour of this Bill was that it would encourage people to travel. Therefore it is legitimate to ask whether that is or is not the declared policy of His Majesty's Government; whether they desire to stimulate travel inside this country by the people of this country or whether they desire them to continue to limit their expenditure to the maximum and to put all they can save into National Savings. Now that I have succeeded in relieving the mind of the Lord President on that point I hope he will be able to deal with the matter when he replies.
The Minister of Transport did not deal with the financial side of the scheme in its direct aspects, but surely we are entitled to hear a good deal more before this House parts with the Second Reading of this Bill? First we must hear some argument as to why it is necessary for His Majesty's Government to shoulder some financial responsibility for the conduct of what, in deference to the sensibilities of the Lord President, I will call the amusement section. Was the issue seriously explored of leasing such activities to private concerns at their own risk before the decision was taken to incur financial responsibility on behalf of the Government? Surely in these times, before the House agrees to any item casting direct or contingent expenditure upon the Exchequer, we are entitled to hear from the Government the reasons for the decision to do that, and whether alternative methods of dealing with the same matter which might have avoided that liability were properly explored.
It seems to me that the financial issue of this Bill goes further. Not only if we pass this Bill are we authorising direct public expenditure of a sum which admittedly in these days does not loom relatively large against the swollen flood of Government expenditure but is still a considerable sum; we are also authorising the expenditure of a sum in excess of three quarters of a million pounds by


way of capital expenditure. It is upon that aspect that I would press the Government further. We have been told again and again by His Majesty's Government that capital expenditure must be cut. Only last month the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
We have to do our best to prevent goods from being kept out of the export field by the pressure of home demand, and we must, therefore, keep down that demand whether in respect of personal consumption, capital goods or Government expenditure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 26th October, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 1333.]
Before it was decided to authorise capital expenditure on this scale I should like to know whether the issue was seriously considered whether the expenditure of this large sum was really necessary. Hon. Members will appreciate that for the provision of pleasure gardens with certain amenities £100,000 of capital expenditure even in these days would go a long way. What is the justification for authorising capital expenditure on this scale in present circumstances? I would draw the attention of hon. Members opposite who have accused hon. Members on this side of the House of desiring gloom and who pose as the exponents of gaiety to the fact that throughout our national economy things which make for the amenity of life have been suspended or postponed. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) gave an example earlier this evening of the Queen's Hall. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) on Thursday was pressing for repairs to a theatre in his constituency which were refused by the Minister of Works on the ground that capital expenditure had to be held in check.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? It was not in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser). The matter has been properly discussed in the quarter of the Government responsible, and progress is being made.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman may have information not available to the Minister of Works—that is more than likely—but he will recall that the Minister of Works in this House on Monday expressly refused the request of my hon. Friend that this work be carried out. When that is so, we are certainly entitled to look with a critical and analytical eye upon the proposal to authorise capital expenditure upon what,

after all, is an amenity rather than a necessity. We have not had detailed figures or estimates, and it is no use, as was suggested from below the Gangway earlier this afternoon, saying that we should wait for the Committee stage, because hon. Members will have noticed a Motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Transport under which this Bill, which is a hybrid Bill, is to be committed to a Select Committee. Therefore, it becomes more important at this Second Reading stage to satisfy ourselves that capital expenditure on this scale is really justified.
We must look at the background; it is a fact that only two days ago the Ministry of Health issued their circular to local authorities suspending completely the issue of licences for the private building of houses. It is going to be a little difficult for hon. Members to explain to their constituents, who are living, as so many of our constituents are, in grossly overcrowded premises—

Earl Winterton: The worst congestion ever known. [Interruption.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member opposite who interrupted disputes that statement I shall be glad to accompany him to homes in my own constituency in which families of four or five are living in one or two rooms, and where whole families are living in the half-way houses provided by local, authorities under poor conditions. If hon. Members opposite who interrupted me would familiarise themselves with similar conditions in their own constituencies they would appreciate that in. many of their divisions the same state of affairs exists as does in mine.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I have given the hon. Gentleman a certain amount of latitude. He is now very wide of the Bill indeed.

Mr. K. Lindsay: I only want to put one point, because the hon. Member is advancing an argument which everyone had to consider, especially those of us who are on the Council. When Wembley was proposed, which was a case of vast Government expenditure, if it had been said, "No, we cannot go on with this scheme because housing conditions are pretty bad," that exhibition would never have taken place. That argument can


be used always. It is not an argument which can be advanced especially at this moment, and it seems now to have no force at all.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member's intervention displays his failure to appreciate the profound difference which exists between the time of Wembley and now. The reason for its applicability to this Bill is that at the time of Wembley there were no legal restrictions upon anybody who desired to build a house. Within the last 48 hours the Ministry of Health have issued definite instructions to local authorities on the question. How in those circumstances the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) can suggest that there is any similarity between a situation in which there is freedom to build and one in which on economic grounds the Government have refused all freedom to build, I leave to the Combined Universities, if such a constituency continues to exist, to deal with.
The issue is this—most hon. Members want this Festival to be a success. It cannot and will not be a success if it does not carry with it the good will not of a temporary Parliamentary majority, but of the general body of opinion in this country. Despite the indiscretion the other day of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I know that the Lord President appreciates that that is true. I put it to hon. Members opposite that if they leave in the minds of substantial sections of people in this country the feeling that material, labour and capital, which might have housed them, are being used for a pleasant and agreeable but less essential purpose, then this Festival of Britain will not command the universal assent and support which it requires.
Therefore, I make this appeal to the Lord President of the Council. I know that more than any man in this House his heart is in the success of this Festival. I ask him to believe that there are others, who, while they agree with him upon the desirability of this Festival and will try in their sometimes humble ways to assist him in its success, think it is quite wrong to drive through this House by an automatic Government majority a Measure

not essential for the major project of the Festival, and which, in the mind at any rate of some people—be they a majority or a minority. I do not know—involves the giving to the amenities and pleasant features which it is proposed to instal in Battersea Park a priority which is denied to homeless millions.

7.57 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): As I understand the position of the Opposition in this matter, it is that on the broad issue of the Festival of Britain they are not opposing the venture. On the contrary, they give it their co-operative support, but they have grave doubt about the proposals in respect of the Festival Gardens at Battersea Park, including the amusement section. I quite agree that this Bill is mainly concerned with the Festival Gardens at Battersea Park, but that having been the attitude of the Opposition, as was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) the other day, I cannot complain if on the Second Reading of this Bill there is some examination of the position, even though I am bound to say I disagree with the point of view that has been expressed in a number of speeches and the feeling which is behind it. But this is a free country, and everybody is entitled to say what he or she likes about the Festival Gardens at Battersea Park.
The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that I have my heart in the Festival of Britain, 1951. That is perfectly true. I have, and I have got a lot of heart, and have had for a long time, in making a hole in the South Bank of the river to start to clean it up, so that there can be a dignified London on that side as well as on the other side. I had a hand in purchasing that land, and I have had a hand in Waterloo Bridge. I am glad that the London County councillors are now to have a hand in making a big hole in the South Bank with a view to redevelopment in that part of London.
As the years go on, Londoners and others from other parts of the country will be as proud of that development as we are proud of the development on the North Bank—the Victoria Embankment, which is one of the few monuments still remaining to the memory of the late but not too heavily regretted Metropolitan


Board of Works, which existed a long time ago. Therefore, the hon. Member is quite right; I am keen about it, because I think that this will be a good proposition for London, for the nation and for the people.
There can be two views of a park. I admit that directly one touches a park one is asking for trouble. I have had plenty in my time. When we took 30 acres of Hackney Marsh to start the slum clearance of London on a big scale there was a big row, but we dealt with it in the end. It is quite right that the public, politicians, and other people, should be sensitive about parks. I am not complaining about that. As I said, there are two possible views about parks. One is that they must all be places of quietness, of greenery, with nice seats where one can take a book—that is one of the most innocent enjoyments I can think of—and study and read and now and again listen to the birds, and look at the trees, and hear the breeze coming through the leaves. That is a very proper view. And a park is a very pleasant place in which to walk about.
At the other extreme there is Hampstead Heath on an August Bank Holiday, which is a most interesting place with a lot of interesting people in it. When I went to the Soviet Union some years ago, I saw some of their parks in Moscow. They called them, "parks of rest and culture"—which is just the sort of thing that class-conscious revolutionary Bolsheviks would do. But I have never seen anything more like Hampstead Heath on a Bank Holiday than those parks of rest and culture in the City of Moscow. There are some people—I am not saying that this is true about hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in this Debate—who are a little stuffy about parks. I am all for there being adequate park provision for quietness, leisure, rest, recreation and sport.
But we ought to include other things in our parks. A little fun and games in some of them will not really do us any harm. After all, there were Vauxhall Gardens years ago. I am not proposing to make the Festival Gardens exactly like Vauxhall Gardens. But if we take the continental use of parks, in a great many of them there is happiness and good cheer without vulgarity and excessive noise. I suggest that the partial use of some of our

parks for that purpose is a perfectly legitimate thing.
That is my approach. In short, I am the friend of everybody—that is my business. I am the friend of people who want to be quiet and reflective, with peace and culture and all the rest of it; and equally I am the friend of the coster-mongers and hobbledehoys who go to Hampstead Heath on a Bank Holiday and kick up an awful row, but have a good time and are happy in their own way. We must use parks according to the purpose in hand.
I will deal with some of the detailed points raised by the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) after my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport had so ably expounded the Bill—[Interruption.] He would have expounded the whole Festival if he had only been allowed to do so, but his style was cramped and he had to go back to those more mundane things. The right hon. Gentleman put a number of points arising out of the speech of my right hon. Friend, or as he would say, not arising out of the speech, because the information was not there. One of his questions was: When was the idea of the expansion of the Festival Gardens first put forward?
The answer is that we never thought of holding the Festival of Britain without an amusement section. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George), together with the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and others who serve on the Festival Council—I am much obliged to all the hon. Members of this House for the co-operation they have given—would agree that right from the very beginning there was the assumption that there would be an amusement section. I cannot remember an exhibition held anywhere in the world, however serious that exhibition might have been—and this is an exhibition of a fairly serious character—where there was not some fun and games, and which did not have its amusement section.
The idea is not new: it was there right from the beginning. Various sites for the whole show were contemplated. It was considered whether the whole business should be at Battersea Park—the


serious exhibits, the pleasure gardens, the amusement section, and everything. Crystal Palace was considered. Hyde Park was mentioned but the Minister of Works was so shocked that I did not pursue the matter. Wembley was mentioned—all those obvious places—and right at the beginning there was the idea of opening up an absolutely new place which would have cost a large sum of money.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Lewisham?

Mr. Morrison: No. I am always very fair in relation to my constituency's interests. In the end we came to the conclusion that the site for the Exhibition had better be on the South Bank. I admit that there are disadvantages about it: it is cramped; the site is limited. On the other hand, it is in the heart of London, and I like the idea of that. I do not like to think of millions of people having to travel to the outskirts for these things. I admit that the central site will create traffic problems, and the police are very conscious of that. But it will be in the heart of London, it will be on the side of the River Thames, which is the finest river in the world. It will also open up the river traffic and will be a great thing for the redevelopment of the South Bank. Therefore, in co-operation with the London County Council, it was so arranged.
We found that we could not have the amusement section there, because there was no room. We considered various places where we could conveniently have it, and we thought that Battersea Park, which had been considered before for the whole thing and rejected, would be suitable for the amusement section. The London County Council examined the matter; indeed I think they made the proposition; and we went forward upon that basis. We shall not ruin the park as a whole. People can get there by water bus from the County Hall or nearby, and there will no doubt be an extension of the river traffic. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. T. Macpherson) is very active in this matter. That is an additional attraction. The more we can get the river into use the better it will be.
That is how it happened. At the time of the Second Reading of the earlier Bill

to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the idea had only just cropped up. There were many discussions to be carried on with the police, with the London County Council, with the Port of London Authority and so on. Therefore it was natural that it should not have come up on that Bill, and of course it would have been outside the scope of that Bill, equally as my right hon. Friend was alleged to be getting outside the scope of the Debate today.
The next question was: is it true that the need of the police for a place to which the crowds could be diverted is the only real argument for the gardens? I think the answer I have given on the earlier point really answers that as well. It is, from the point of view of the police, an advantage that public congestion will be broken up into two centres. But the main reason was that it was not physically possible to put the Gardens on the South Bank, otherwise it is probable that that would have been done. As matters have worked out, it is helpful to the police that there should be this break-up of the assemblies of people.
I have been asked whether the Festival Gardens should be redesigned; what are the council doing; what will be the hours of opening, and so on. These questions are really for decision by the Festival Gardens Company and no doubt they will be taken into account also by the Council of the Festival of Britain, upon which all parties in this House are represented. The Government have gathered together the best brains they could find for the job. Indeed, had they not refused, the Opposition—that is to say, the Conservative Party on the London County Council—could have had a seat on the board of directors of the Festival Gardens Company, but they preferred not to serve. It was competent for them so to decide; otherwise they would have been there.
We have got the best available business and creative capacities that we could find and, having done that, I think that my best course is to let them get on with the job. If a Minister of the Crown tries to handle every detail in these matters, he will only get himself into a mess. I do not want to interfere with all the details of the Council of the Festival of Britain. As long as they carry on in a sensible and able way, as they are doing, it would be wrong if I were to interfere.
Anyway, I have enough to do interfering with other people without interfering with them.
The next point was about the restoration of the park. There is an obligation to restore the park in principle and so far as that is desired. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport really fell into a difficulty here. It may be the case, as he and others have said, that people may ask that some of these features should become permanent. I would not be a bit surprised if, when the six or 12 months is up and it has been a great success and people are feeling happier then they have shown themselves to be in this Debate tonight—more cheerful and bright—the London evening newspaper which has been carrying on a campaign of misery against this idea, with a most depressing thing on page 2 in the leader column and more depression on page 6, or whatever it is, about "A Streetcar named Desire "—

Air Commander Harvey: No tax.

Mr. Morrison: I read about that yesterday. I would not be a bit surprised if at that point they did not suddenly wake up. It would not surprise me if this very same newspaper which seems to have an extraordinary grudge against Londoners—and it is published in the City—started another campaign and said, "What? Stop this happy Festival Gardens in Battersea Park? What an idea! Typical of the miserable people who run this country." I throw out that idea to the editor. I would not be a bit surprised if it does not come off.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that we have an obligation to restore. On the other hand, if by agreement with the authorities concerned there are certain things which people do not want restored, we will co-operate. The points made by the right hon. Gentleman are met under the Bill and under the policy attitude which His Majesty's Government would adopt towards it. I hope that that meets the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I do not think it quite meets the point. I agreed that it was desirable that if the Battersea people or someone else wanted to keep one of the items, they should be allowed to do so. What I queried was the statement of the Minister of Transport that the Bill

contains a specific provision that unless something was wanted it would come to an end in a certain time. The Bill enables the appropriate Minister to extend not only in a case where it is sought to retain something, but in a case where people want it cleared away. That seems to be a danger.

Mr. Morrison: I follow the point, but I think it is right that the Bill should provide that in principle there is an obligation on us to restore. That is not an obligation to restore if the general consensus of opinion is that we should not do so.

Mr. Hudson: The Lord President will remember that we asked for some outline of the finances on which this set-up was based, and that raises the question of Sunday opening.

Mr. Morrison: That really is a matter for the Council of the Festival of Britain and the Festival Gardens Company. There are some points which they have under consideration. The Gardens will be open throughout the week, including Saturdays. I am not sure about Sunday opening; these matters are not yet settled. I do not propose to go into detail on the estimates, because I am not trying to hold strictly to each detail. We get into trouble if we do, because that is their business as long as they keep within the overall limits required by the Government.
The total estimated expenditure is £800,000. That will be partly capital expenditure proper. For example, it will include the construction of piers. It will be partly for maintenance costs and partly for meeting deficiencies if they occur as the work goes along. These moneys will be voted annually by Parliament on the best possible basis that we can estimate. They will be advanced as loans to the Festival Gardens Company. There is estimated to be a revenue, from concessionaires in the amusement section and others. The concessionaires in the amusement section will pay a rental or a contract fee, and then take their own risks as to whether they make money or lose it. There will also be gate money which the public will contribute and other sundry forms of income. These are estimates and it will be appreciated that I cannot be bound by them; but the estimated income is £700,000.
That leaves us with a net deficiency of £100,000. It may be that we will be lucky and that there will not be a deficiency, or it may be that we will be unlucky and that the deficiency will be greater. I have no doubt that the English weather will have something to do with that, but I think that that gives the right hon. Gentleman a broad picture of the finances. We hope that there will be between 30,000 and 70,000 visitors daily. I think I have dealt with the various questions which the right hon. Gentleman, quite legitimately, put to me.
I was very much obliged for the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Wilmot), who spoke with considerable knowledge and who has worked very hard on the Festival Council. I was exceedingly grateful also for the kindly action and the generosity of my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey who came to my defence after she thought that there had been a rather excessive attack upon the general idea of this proposal. I always listen to her with great admiration. She certainly made a very able speech. She asked whether the noise in the Festival Gardens amusement section would be checked. I can assure my hon. Friend that everything possible is being done to minimise the noise. In fact, it is thought that there will be no nuisance to the people in the locality—at any rate, nothing material. This will be the most polite and gentle fun fair—if I may descend to that coarse description—that has ever been known. The greatest trouble is being taken about that point of noise.
The hon. Lady hoped, and I agree with her, that some of the amenities should remain, where there is general agreement, because they may constitute permanent improvements to this great London park. I agree with her entirely that it is most desirable that the landscape gardens should be lovely, and that they may well be made permanent also. It was important that the views of my hon. Friend the Member for South Battersea (Mrs. Ganley) should be heard, and I was very glad she made her contribution, because she represents a constituency which is partly concerned. I was glad to hear that she gave her blessing to this scheme, and I know that she has herself been very active in seeing that the interests of her

own constituents are not damaged by this important venture.
The hon. Member for Woodbridge said that the London ratepayers were going to have to bear up to £40,000 of the loss on the Festival Gardens. That is what the hon. Gentleman really meant. Well, they do undertake such a risk, but it may be that they will not be called upon to bear a loss. I have been Leader of the London County Council and have had a lot to do with London local government. I have been as daring as any municipal leader in trying to wring money out of the Government on various occasions, and I dare say that the game is still going on and that London is still at it. Indeed, London is probably carrying on my good ideas, but I am now in the Government and on the other side of the counter. While I do not blame London for trying to get a bit of money out of the Government, neither do I blame the Government for seeing that London does not get too much.
I think we have been quite fair as between the London County Council and the Government. I know that some folk at County Hall have been saying that they should not pay a penny because this is a national affair. We must remember that London will get a great advantage out of this. This Festival will bring a lot of trade to London, and the ratepayers of London will be gaining in many respects. London must also remember that there are others in the Provinces who are watching this affair very closely. There are some of our friends and others in Scotland and in Wales who are looking at this scheme and saying, "What are we going to get out of it?" It is perfectly true that the capital must play a prominent part in it, but, if the L.C.C.—and I say this as a friend of that body, as a former Leader of the L.C.C. and as one who has a great love for it—takes the advice of some of the members of that Council and gets over-aggressive and over-greedy in saying "We will not pay anything; let the Government pay," London will be the worse off; but I do not believe that they will be so mean, because London is a generous and kind-hearted city, which looks after the public interest.
Next, it is said that we must not do this at the expense of housing. So far as I know, there is really no interference at all


with London's housing, but I must point out that, if we had followed the logical application of this principle, it would have meant that nobody—neither Government, private individual nor private company—would be permitted to touch a brick unless for the purpose of building a house, in which case there would be a considerable degree of inconvenience to various civilians, and not always the working classes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford talked about additional piers on the river, and we have that in mind and we will see how we go. I thank the hon. Gentleman the Junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) for a charming speech which I did not hear but the notes of which I have in front of me now, and I can well imagine that speech being delivered. The Junior Burgess went through the forties which always seem to have been a bad time, although I think the present forties are pretty good. I can well imagine him delivering that speech, and while I am exceedingly sorry to have missed it, I am grateful for his support. Of all the people who are entitled to talk about the Thames and movements on the river, certainly the hon. Gentleman is. He is the one who has worried me most for years, including the days when I was Minister of Transport, to put boats on the Thames. Now we have got them, and the hon. Gentleman is quite right. He told us something of the history of Chelsea Reach; and he expressed the hope, which I share, that the Opposition will not vote against the Bill. I shall be happy if the Division does not take place.
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. K. Robinson) for his support. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) also referred to housing, on which subject my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) also made a comment. The hon. and gallant Member would have preferred a trade exhibition. Well, one of the events associated with the Festival will be a Board of Trade Fair. I think an exhibition of a different kind from sheer trading is quite a good thing in helping to show the cultural and scientific side of the life of the British people over 100 years, but I must not say too much about that, because I am getting away

from the programme. Of course, he was against the Festival Gardens, and I shall watch with interest to see whether he starts up a campaign in Manchester for the abolition of Belle Vue. If he does, I must ask him to give me notice before the General Election, so that I can send a tip to my Manchester people to tell them what is coming.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, West (Mr. J. Hudson) put his views about liquor consumption, and I can assure him that his views, as well as those of ministers and others, will be kept in mind. I know with what sincerity he speaks on these matters, and he always does it with a cheerful face, which is another good thing. We like his spirit, even if he does not like the spirits against which he campaigns. My hon. Friend the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) made a valuable contribution on various aspects of this proposition, and I can assure her that her points will be noted.
I still have hopes of the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), who has moved from atheism to agnosticism. Who knows?—I may make him into a good Christian before long. It is true that the idea of this show was partly influenced in the first place by that great newspaper the "News Chronicle." We disagree sometimes, and at other times we do not, but they saw the vision and they had their share of the influence. It was a curious coincidence that the editor of that paper, Mr. Gerald Barry, who no doubt had a hand in promoting the idea from the "News Chronicle," should have departed from the "News Chronicle" by mutual arrangement and quite independently of this. There was no trouble about this idea, but, by sheer change of circumstances, he became the Director-General. I think he is a very good Director-General and that he is going very good work there. However, I have hopes that, when the Festival Gardens open, the junior Burgess for Cambridge University and the junior Burgess for Oxford University may go to the Festival Gardens and have a jolly good night out.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Would the right hon. Gentleman arrange, whenever that takes place, that I shall still be the junior Burgess for Cambridge University?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot promise that, but we will see what we can do with what is left of the City of London.
The noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) asked whether the money would be borne on the annual Votes. It is not proposed to amortise the capital so far as State expenditure is concerned. It will be paid out of revenue as we go. Therefore, presumably it can be challenged on the Estimates in some way or another. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bermondsey (Mr. Sargood) said that he thought the people of London were behind the idea. I think they are. It is awfully difficult to be sure, because the people of London are a quiet people. They do not make a great noise. But my judgment is that they like the idea and support it. I hope for their voluntary co-operation in many ways to assist in the work of the Festival.
The support of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) was very welcome. I think I have answered the points that he raised, including his suggestion that the Festival ought to continue for a long time—something like five, six or seven years, which we originally thought of—largely on financial grounds. I cannot promise that, because there has been an awful row about the period of six months. If it is to be six months, it must be six months; but it may be that by the time it comes we shall be able to judge public feeling better as to whether or not the Festival should continue. I do not want to break faith. We have cut down the time, in association with the two borough councils of Battersea and Chelsea, and I should not like to break faith with them.
The hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) suggested that Kew Gardens might be added to the Festival. I do not know. I had better swallow this piece of territory first. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), who is always looking after the interests of his constituents with greatability, would like a pier at Chiswick. We will take note of that. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) mentioned the point about nuisance and the right of getting an injunction in the courts, which I agree, under the Bill, we have interfered with. We had to do that, as he will appreciate, in order that the money expended should

be protected; but, on the other hand, I can assure him that any complaints which are made by the people in the vicinity, whoever they may be, will be taken into the most serious account by the Festival authorities and we will do everything we can to meet them. But we did feel that there ought to be legal security, because actions of that kind could be a very great trouble, although the local borough council authorities of Battersea and Chelsea have agreed about it.
I have answered the point about the concessionaires. The real answer is that they will pay a sum, and then carry on at their own risk. There is no undertaking that we shall pay deficits. I have also answered the point about capital expenditure, upon which information was requested; I have given the information in the course of my observations. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick said something about a rormer Member of Parliament, and he quoted a part of what he said, which is a great pity because I also looked up what the gentleman said. I will give a longer quotation than my hon. Friend gave. It is extraordinary how history repeats itself, and how the argument which we have had today occurred in part in connection with the 1851 exhibition. I must say that although some people, including the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey and others, thought that the right hon. Member for Southport was perhaps a little bit rough on us, he was indeed mildness itself compared with the hon. Member from whose speech I am now going to quote.
The speech was made in this House on 20th June, 1850, and it was in relation to the Great Exhibition of 1851, of which this will be the centenary. As I have said, somewhat similar observations were made then. One hon. Member on that occasion suggested
that there was another locality equally convenient with Hyde Park, and one which the public would far more desire to see selected. He referred to Battersea-fields, a mile and a half from Hyde Park … 
which he said
would admirably suit the purposes of the Exhibition.
We have now taken this advice, perhaps a little belatedly, but even Labour Governments come on in due time. I hope we have done it at least with the approval of Sir De Lacy Evans, then


Member for Westminster, who vainly presented a petition against the choice of Hyde Park, and also Mr. T. Alcock, the Member for East Surrey—which curiously included Battersea in those days—who later said that a site of 35 acres—only two less than we are taking—
might be procured in Battersea-fields by tomorrow morning if necessary.
I should like to conclude these historical references with one or two quotations of what an hon. Member said nearly 99 years ago—and this was good stuff. A report of one hon. Member's speech read:
The parks were the property of the people … and he asked for what were they to be cut down—for one of the greatest humbugs, one of the greatest frauds, one of the greatest absurdities ever known—he meant the intended Exposition of 1851. For such a thing as that, the Government were about to be guilty of the crime of demolishing public property of the most valuable kind, and all for the purpose of encouraging foreigners who would only laugh at the English for their folly. All the bad characters at present scattered over the country would be attracted to Hyde Park as a favourable field for their operations, and to keep them in check an immense body of police must be constantly on duty night and day. That being the case, he would advise persons residing near the park to keep a sharp look-out after their silver forks and spoons and servant maids. The public Press "—
you see, the public Press again—
The public Press had condemned the selection made of Hyde Park for the site of the Exhibition, and pointed out other places more suitable for the purpose.
Now, what he wanted was the appointment of a Select Committee. We have not thought about that. The quotation continues:
Now, what he wanted was the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire whether this absurd Exhibition should take place at all, but he had been informed by one of the most eminent practical men of the day that it could not be completed for less than £200,000. Where the money was to come from he knew not, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be called on. He must say that a more wild goose chase, a more undefined scheme, a more delusive or dangerous undertaking never had been attempted by any man, and who was to pay for it all? John Bull.
Those were the sentiments of Colonel C. D. W. Sibthorp, the Member for Lincoln. Apparently Orpington was not represented in that House. These historical reproductions go on, yet history records that that Great Exhibition of 1851 was an enormous success which did

much to consolidate the prestige and leadership which our country enjoyed in Victorian times. That Exhibition left many profitable legacies. I hope that will be so in this case.
We have had the Debate. The right hon. Member for Southport indicated at the beginning that if the Opposition were not satisfied on the way things went they might find it necessary to divide. I have done my best, I think courteously, but with a bit of good cheer as I went on, to satisfy the Opposition on the points they raised. Of course, they are perfectly free to divide if they wish to, but I should be a little sorry because I want this to be kept out of party divisions if possible, and if they let the Bill go they will, of course, have further opportunities to check us on expenditure and things that are done. If there are things they do not like, by all means they can raise them; but this is a great effort of the nation and it will, I think, be a great expression of the best feelings of the British people. Although we shall not be hurt and the Festival will not stop if there is a Division, I would be more pleased, in the interests of the spirit behind this, and particularly for the sake of the staff who work at the Festival offices, if the House would be so good as to give this Bill a Second Reading without a Division.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: By leave of the House, perhaps I may say one word. I venture to think that if the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had been made at the beginning of the Debate it would have shortened the Debate very materially indeed. We are grateful to him for what he has done. It is quite clear from what he says that he believes and that the Festival Committee believes that without this extension in Battersea Park it is not possible to carry on the Festival successfully, and, while we still do not like the idea of budgeting for a loss of public money in this way, we certainly shall accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request in the interests of the Festival itself, and let this Bill go through unopposed.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Select Committee of Six Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection:

Any Petitions against the Bill deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the fifth day after this day to stand referred to the Committee, but if no such Petitions are deposited, the Order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee to be discharged and the Bill to be committed to a Committee of the Whole House:

Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, to be heard against the Bill provided that their Petitions are prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House, and Counsel to be heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitions:

Power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Barnes.]

Orders of the Day — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee of the Whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified].

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make, in connection with the Festival of Britain, 1951, provision for festival gardens in Battersea Park and further provision as respects river traffic, works and entertainments, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred under the said Act by any Minister of the Crown and any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under section eight of the Public Works (Festival of Britain) Act, 1949;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of the receipts of any such Minister in respect of interest on, and the repayment of, loans made under the said Act;
(c) the release by any such Minister of the whole or any part of claims in respect of such loans."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENT SQUARE (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

8.43 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill deals with improvements to Parliament Square, formerly known as Garden Square, and one result of the Bill will, I hope, be to enable the Square once again to live up to its old name. The land comprising it was purchased by the Special Commissioners of Improvements at various times throughout the eighteenth century under statutes for the purpose of improving the approaches to the Houses of Parliament. It was laid out in its present form in 1868 to the design of Mr. E. M. Barry, son of the architect of the Houses of Parliament. It was sadly mutilated by the removal of Baron Marochetti's railings and lamp standards during the war.
In 1935 a row of houses along Little George Street was purchased by a building firm who intended to erect a very tall block of offices there, and demolition of the houses was begun. The Middlesex County Council, who were anxious to preserve the amenities of their Guildhall, purchased the site from the building firm. The Government then agreed to buy the site from the Middlesex County Council at the price paid, assisted by contributions from the Pilgrim Trust, the London County Council, the Middlesex County Council, the Westminster City Council and the Institute of Chartered Surveyors. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Transport drew attention to the necessity for improving the traffic conditions in Parliament Square. They suggested that a larger central island was necessary to allow traffic more room in Great George Street. If the northern side of the central island were lengthened it was expected that the frequent traffic blocks at the junction of Parliament Street and Bridge Street with Parliament Square would be greatly reduced.
The scheme, however, was held in abeyance during the war, but was brought up again by the London County Council, who produced a revised scheme which was submitted to the Ministry of Works in 1947. The Ministry of Transport and


the police approved those proposals as being very necessary for improving traffic conditions in a very congested part of the capital. It is a scheme which would in any case have been put forward as a part of the London County Council programme of road improvements, but the proposal to hold the Festival of Britain on the South Bank site gave special urgency to the problem. The police felt that unless the Parliament Square scheme could be carried out before the Festival it would be very difficult for them to agree to the choice of the South Bank site for the Festival of Britain.
Parliament Square lies on one of the main approaches to the Festival site from the northern bank of the river, and it was finally decided that the road improvement should be completed by the time the Festival opened, and arrangements were therefore made to proceed with the scheme. I would point out that in the annual Estimates of my Department the House approved expenses for that part of the work which will be done in the present financial year. As might be realised, when dealing with land so close to the Palace of Westminster, and possessing so long a history, the legal position regarding the square is somewhat involved. As an example, I would mention that when my Department asked the Public Record Office to provide the documents relating to land titles in and around Parliament Square, the Public Record Office sent over to the Treasury Solicitor 42 boxes containing some 600 documents. Examination of these documents suggested that difficulties might arise if the scheme were carried out without statutory authority, and it was therefore decided to introduce this Bill.
The land had been acquired for specific purposes at different times, and although the whole of it was now Crown property certain obscurities in title and restrictions on use rendered this step essential. This Bill is designed to deal with these problems and to clear up certain other small points in connection with the scheme. It is not designed—and I want to emphasis this—to authorise the scheme as a whole, but is limited to removing any doubts about title to ownership and to powers to carry out details of the scheme.
The responsibility for the scheme is divided between the London County Council and the Ministry of Works. The

London County Council will be responsible for road works and the Ministry of Works for laying out and maintaining the two new garden enclosures. All these works will be carried out almost entirely under existing powers. The points covered in the Bill are the narrowing by a few feet of certain carriage ways for which neither the Ministry of Works nor the County Council have powers, and the extinguishing of certain rights of way.
It would have been possible to extinguish these rights of way without a Bill, but since a Bill was considered necessary for other purposes they have been included as a matter of convenience. Authority is also being sought to remove statues and to re-erect them. Plans and a model of the scheme have been available for inspection, and a revised plan is now in the Library of this House. Briefly, it is intended to enlarge the central existing island to include the present carriageway on the western side and a portion of the Canning enclosure. The new carriageway will run through the centre of what is now the Canning enclosure with a footpath on its western side.
At the urgent request of the police, no provision has been made for a footpath around the new enlarged central island, and it is hoped thereby to discourage pedestrians crossing to the central island and thus to reduce the accident risks. There will, however, be two entrances to the garden, one at the north and one at the south, for which special pedestrian crossings are to be provided.
The garden will be surrounded by a narrow curb and a low wall, and the interior will be laid out with paved walks and with lines of flower beds. A small garden will also be laid out in what is left of the Canning enclosure on the western side of the new carriageway. The statues of Lincoln and Canning will be sited in this small garden, and the statues of Derby, Palmerston, Disraeli and Peel will be arranged along the western side of the island. Provision is also being made in the design for the erection of an equestrian statute in the north-east corner of the central garden looking out on Parliament Street. No decision has as yet been reached as to the nature of this statue, while certain details of the layout remain to be discussed with the Royal Fine Art Commission who have, however, approved the scheme as a whole.

Mr. Keeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it has been decided what equestrian is to be on the statue?

Mr. Key: No. As I have said the nature of the statue has not yet been decided. Examination of this Bill will show how little of this scheme which I have tried to explain has in fact to be authorised by it. For convenience, the scheme as a whole has been set forth in the Preamble, both the parts to be enacted and those to be carried out under existing powers.
The first Clause of the Bill authorises the London County Council to carry out the narrowing of the carriageways. The three works involved are a portion of Great George Street which is a few feet wide, which will be incorporated in the new central garden opposite the end of Parliament Street; the widening of the pavement outside the Middlesex Guildhall, and the widening of the pavement outside St. Margaret's Church. The second of these works has been included to meet, as far as possible, certain objections on the part of the Middlesex County Council to the scheme. They felt that traffic would be brought much nearer to the windows of their Guildhall than at present. The pavement, therefore, has been extended as far as possible at the corner of Broad Sanctuary and Little George Street to minimise any nuisance to them from noise.
Clause 2 deals with the extinguishing and creation of rights of way. As I have already said, we have considered it convenient to deal with this in the Bill, although we could have done it without it. The new road is being made by the London County Council under their powers as highway improvement authority, and for that no new powers are included in the Bill. The rights of way on the pavements of the existing central island will be extinguished under the new scheme, and a portion of the pavement on the eastern side of Little George Street will be incorporated in the new Canning enclosure. The Clause provides for this, but it is so worded as to insure that no rights of way will be extinguished until the new road is open to traffic. It also provides for the handing over of maintenance of the new carriageway and pavements to the highway authority, the

Westminster City Council, when the work is completed.
Clause 3 provides for the removal and re-erection of statues in Parliament Square and the Canning enclosure, and for the removal of the Buxton Memorial Fountain. All the existing statues will be re-erected in the new Central Gardens or the new Canning enclosure, but the future of the Buxton Memorial Fountain is still under discussion—it is not proposed to re-erect it in Parliament Square. The Clause also seeks to remove any doubts as to the title of the land in the Square, which will henceforth be vested in the Ministry of Works. The sewers, cables, mains and other apparatus under the Square, and the District Railway, will not be affected by this Clause, as their rights are being specifically reserved in the last paragraph.
Clause 4 refers to the provisions set out in the Schedule for the protection of the statutory undertakers and of the British Transport Commission in regard to the possible effects on their apparatus and property resulting from work in the Square. The Schedule provides for the protection of the British Transport Commission, and is modelled on the protection accorded them in the Public Office (Site) Act, 1947. It has been drafted in consultation with the legal advisors of the British Transport Commission, and agreement in principle has been reached with them.
Part II of the Schedule deals with the protection of the statutory undertakers. In order to save expense and time, it has been agreed by all interested parties that certain of the mains, cables, and pipes belonging to the Metropolitan Water Board, the North Thames Gas Board and the London Electricity Board should not be moved. They are at present beneath the public highway, but after the completion of the work some will be underneath the new Gardens. It was clearly necessary to offer them adequate access to their apparatus, and this is designed to safeguard their rights.
The remaining Clauses of the Bill reserve the rights of the Lord Great Chamberlain and other officers of State, deal with the expenses of the scheme, the use of the Square on ceremonial occasions and matters of interpretation. The Ministry of Works are responsible for the new gardens and for the expenses


involved in laying them out; it is estimated that the cost will be £60,000. The London County Council will be responsible for all road works, and they will be assisted in defraying the cost of these by a 75 per cent. grant from the Ministry of Transport. The cost of removing the statue of Lincoln and the Buxton Memorial Fountain has been accepted by them as being part of works being properly chargeable as road works. I understand that the expenditure involved is approximately £46,500, of which £1,500 will be required for work authorised under Clause 1.
In preparing the scheme every effort has been made to consult every interested party. The architectural design is the work of Mr. Grey Wornum, and the scheme as a whole has been accepted in principle by all concerned with the sole exception of the Middlesex County Council. To accept the alterations required by the Middlesex County Council would have involved the complete reworking of the scheme, to which I could not agree. When plans and models were exhibited to Members of the House during the summer no adverse criticism was received from any quarter, so I trust that hon. Members will find no difficulty in giving the Bill a Second Reading and supporting this important improvement of the traffic of London and the amenities of Westminster and its Palace.

Mr. Haydn Davies: Did I understand my right hon. Friend to say that all the statues would be put back and no new ones brought in at all? Must the scheme be confined to those which are there already?

Mr. Key: All the existing statues in Parliament Square will be re-erected and re-sited. The scheme envisages a new equestrian statue on the north-east corner, looking up Parliament Street. So far as I can see there is nothing to prevent additional statues being put there in future, if they are felt to be essential.

Mr. Davies: Could we have in this new conception of Parliament Square the finest piece of statuary in London "The Burghers of Calais," which is lying neglected under the Victoria Tower?

Mr. Key: No, Sir, but I have other ideas of what may be done with it.

9.4 p.m.

Sir Harold Webbe: I am sure the House will be grateful to the Minister for the clear explanation he has given of the content and purpose of the Bill and the circumstances which have lead to its introduction. It is, of course, in a sense a small Bill, but I am sure hon. Members will agree that it is a very important Bill. After all, Parliament Square is not merely an important site in the City of Westminster; it is the site of the very heart of the Empire and its development and future are, therefore, the concern not only of the people of Westminster but of every hon. Member and indeed the whole of the people of this country.
It is because of the importance of the Bill that I am sorry, and I think others are sorry, too, that it is introduced in conditions which involve a rather speedy handling of this piece of legislation, and in a form which will not give some opportunity on the Committee stage to hon. Members generally to make their comments and criticisms on detail. I hope I shall not be out of Order in what I have to say, but I feel it is desirable that one should say something about the broad details of the scheme.
The Bill refers to a scheme which is shown on a deposited plan. I assume that the plan, which is now in the Library of the House, is intended to be a deposited plan. I should like to make one or two general comments on that plan and on the scheme which is outlined. As a traffic improvement, I am personally satisfied that it is a most valuable scheme, and I hope very much that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill without any dissension. But when one looks at the detailed working of it, I must confess I am not by any means as satisfied. The proposed arrangement of the garden is almost a monstrosity. I do not know whether those who have drawn this plan of gardening arrangements are gardeners. I very much doubt it, because no gardener could obtain satisfaction in the planting of some of the beds.
The whole scheme is terrifically modern. It offends against all canons of gardening development and design. It is extraordinarily restless. It avoids in a studied manner any attempt at symmetry. There is nothing symmetrical in it even where there is an opportunity for


symmetry. In the paved portion with the beds inside, symmetry is deliberately avoided by placing two of the L-shaped beds in the same direction instead of facing one another to frame the statue between them. So far as I can see, the only explanation is that this is to be a space in the centre of a traffic roundabout, and quite clearly the only underlying idea of the design is that the whole of the features in the garden should chase one another round in the same direction as the traffic moves. It is shockingly restless, and I hope that before the Ministry are committed to this particular design for the gardens, they will at least look at it again. The only restful thing in the whole of that site is the statues of the dead Prime Ministers.
There is a much more serious feature about the design which must be looked at very closely indeed. The Minister has explained that at the request of the police it is proposed to make this an island site, which can only be entered at two points, and round which there will be no pathway and nothing but an 18-inch kerb. The intention is no doubt admirable. It is to discourage pedestrians from crossing dangerous lines of traffic at other than specified points. I am quite sure that the Minister, with his knowledge of London and all the attempts that have been made to stop street accidents by providing safe crossings, will realise how completely hopeless it is to assume that that intention will be realised. He has only to take as an example the death-trap crossing at the County Hall end of Westminster Bridge, where a subway has been provided for many years and nobody ever uses it. It is certain that people will not be discouraged from attempting to get on to the island from points other than the two corners where entrances are provided.

Mr. James Hudson: Has the hon. Gentleman observed what happens now at the traffic island at Mill-bank which is circular? Precisely the same will happen in Parliament Square. Pedestrians do not go across the lines of traffic.

Sir H. Webbe: Surely that is quite a different case. Here is a garden to which people are invited, with features in it which people wish to enjoy. Very many

more pedestrians desire to cross from one side of Parliament Street to the other than try to get across at Millbank. People simply will not do it. I know that I am by no means alone in this conviction that this kerb will become a positive death-trap. Old ladies who will try to get across there will measure more than eighteen inches, even if you take them sideways, and the plight of pedestrians who are marooned at these spots when they are trying to find holes into which they can bolt for safety is one which no one can seriously contemplate. I hope that that feature, which I regard as of the utmost importance to pedestrian safety, will be reconsidered. I know that I am by no means alone in this view.
Apart from comments of that kind, I support the Bill. I wish it were possible—and that guidance could be given—for hon. Members in one way or another to convey their criticisms to the Select Committee which will examine the Bill. I am not expert in Parliamentary Procedure, but I am afraid that it is difficult for that to be done. The matter is of such general interest to hon. Members who desire that the development of Parliament Square should be on proper lines so as to be worthy of the importance of the site, that I feel sure that many hon. Members will want to convey their ideas about the design which is before us. I have no further criticisms to offer. I hope that the House will agree to the Second Reading and that there will be opportunities for further consideration of details which, from my point of view, are by no means satisfactory.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Gibson: I do not propose to detain the House very long and although I would like to follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Westminster, Abbey (Sir H. Webbe) about gardening, I am not expert enough to decide whether he is right or wrong. This Bill seems to me to propose a first-class traffic improvement which we ought to have done many years ago and therefore I support it wholeheartedly. I have no right to speak for the London County Council but I think I can say that the Ministry of Works will have their wholehearted co-operation in carrying out this scheme.
There is one point that I wish to make. The Minister explained in some detail


that all the statues were to be put back. I regret that. Those statues are by no means a credit to London or to the artistic sense of London, except perhaps in the case of one: I would exclude the Lincoln monument from my criticism.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Keep the Disraeli statue, too.

Mr. Gibson: I am a bit dubious about putting back the statues in the middle of this very great traffic improvement. Apart from that, I wish to put forward some points of criticism about the Bill, which I regard as a traffic improvement urgently needed in that part of London. I hope that we shall avoid the idea of a completely grass area and that there will be some flower beds properly and beautifully laid out. I have no doubt that the Ministry of Works will be able to find people who will give us an English garden, not too extravagantly modern perhaps, but one which will at any rate add to the beauty of that part of London. As a traffic improvement, this is a wise and appropriate Bill, and like the hon. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster, I hope that the House will give it a unanimous Second Reading.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I should like to add my tribute to that which the Minister paid to the Middlesex County Council, who acquired the land without which the Square could not have been made a square in Tact as well as in name. Their public spirit is all the more commendable because their Guildhall is not, and for many years has not been, in Middlesex, and so their ratepayers are contributing to something which is quite a long way from their own county. I am very glad that the new road has been laid out in a fresh way so that it will not go. immediately under their windows.
Because the Bill makes traffic easier and also improves the appearance of the Square, the Council of the ancient City of Westminster give their general approval to it, but there is one serious defect to which my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) has referred. As the Minister pointed out, there is to be no pavement but only. an 18-inch kerb and a dwarf wall around the central garden. I agree with my hon. Friend

that whatever may be the intention of the promoters of the scheme, it is certain that people will cross the carriage-way to the garden from every point in the Square, and if there is no footpath but only a narrow kerb between the dwart wall and the carriage-way there will be a grave risk of accidents. In eliminating the pavement the Government, who have been persuaded by the police, are being very unrealistic and are increasing the danger and not reducing it as the police suggest.
A further point is that on any occasion which may attract sightseers—there are many such occasions in Parliament Square—if no footway is provided, people are sure to stand on the dwarf wall, with danger to themselves and to the wall, and in so doing they will block the view of the people who are standing in the garden itself. People ought to have facilities for seeing processions from a pavement round the outside of the garden.
I am sorry to inform the Minister of Works that the Westminster City Council are going to petition against the Bill because that is the only course they can take in the very short time allowed them. It is the only way in which they can draw attention to the need for an alteration which they consider vital. However, I believe I can say that if the Government will meet us on this and on any other outstanding point, the petition will be withdrawn.
I should like to say a word about the statues. The hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson) expressed the hope that some of the statues which have been moved would not be re-erected. I am very glad to see that Clause 3 (1) makes no provision at all for the re-erection of the Buxton Memorial Fountain, which has no artistic merit whatever. I am very glad that it is to be removed from the Square. I hope it will also be destroyed, unless somebody comes forward with an offer to take it away and re-erect it.

Mr. J. Hudson: What about Disraeli and the primroses?

Mr. Keeling: While the Minister of Works is improving the precincts of the Abbey and Palace of Westminster, would he turn an eye on that horrible red granite Indian Mutiny and Crimea War Memorial, that depressing and discordant monolith, at the west end of Westminster


Abbey, which has been there for nearly a century? It would be a great improvement to the amenities of the precincts of Westminster if that could be removed too.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I think that memorial is outside the plan. Therefore, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not go on to suggest re-planning the whole of the City of Westminster.

Mr. Keeling: I have made my point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am sure I shall be in Order in reverting to the proposal to remove the Buxton Memorial Fountain. I would remind the Minister that only the other day the Westminster City Council quitely, one night, without any statutory powers, removed the so-called "Poetry Fountain" in Park Lane, with great advantage to traffic and to the amenities of Westminster. If that can be done, I am sure nobody would complain if the Buxton Memorial Fountain were seen no more.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Shackleton: The main point to which I wish to refer has been fully made by the hon. Members for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) and Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). I must confess to being an inveterate square hopper. I have succeeded in avoiding annihilation on so many occasions that I believe I shall continue to do so, but if I have to take a small wall in my path, the situation may be more damaging for the flower beds on the other side—

Sir H. Webbe: And the hedge on the top of the wall.

Mr. Shackleton: There is a further point that we are also concerned with as hon. Members of this House. We want to avoid the dreadful experience that nearly befell the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory), and the thought of him or some of the other hon. Members of similar distinction and years having to endure this tremendous danger in a desire to see a little pleasant rural scenery or to smell a flower, is something which we cannot contemplate lightly. The two hon. Members who have spoken on this subject have not provided any solution, and I do not know what the solution is unless we can fix up some aerial crossing.
I want particularly to refer to the matter which has so deeply aroused the interest and curiosity of the House. The Minister of Works referred to an unspecified equestrian statue. We take it that the horse will not be of the kind which recently has been associated with such distinction with the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), but we would like to know who will sit on its back. Is it to be Richard Coeur-de-Lion? I take it that it will not be Lady Godiva. I wonder whether we might not break new ground and have a distinguished monument to the creator of so much that is magnificent in London, namely, a statue of the Lord President of the Council—on horseback, of course. With that suggestion, which I feel to be most constructive, I commend the Bill to the House.

Sir H. Webbe: Would the hon. Member consider adding to his suggestion that the statue should be made by the gentleman who did the three so-called human figures in Battersea Park, and whose name, I think, is Ward?

9.25 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I can agree with all the hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken on the very great importance of the Parliament Square site, and this occasion gives one an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon its development. I live in the hope that I will one day find something upon which I can agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) but I am bound to say—and I cannot let this opportunity of saying so pass—that I am in entire disagreement with him about the Buxton Memorial Fountain. I take the view that this fountain possesses great merits. I regret that Clause 3 of the Bill, which empowers the Minister to remove and re-erect the statues, only empowers him to remove the fountain.
This fountain has a considerable interest to hon. Members of this House. It was designed and built by an hon. Member of this House, Mr. Charles Buxton, in 1864, as a memorial to the emancipation of the slaves. It celebrates and serves as a memorial of that event and of the work of Mr. Charles Buxton's father. Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton, and of Brougham, Wilberforce, Macaulay and


others who fought for emancipation. It represents a very great event in our history and I regret that in any sort of Welwyn Garden City frame of mind there should be a desire to discard what is, I think, in many respects an admirable and interesting monument.
I would be prepared further to defend the Buxton Memorial Fountain upon æsthetic grounds. I think that the revulsion against Victorian taste and design, which undoubtedly persisted throughout most of the first half of this century, has expended itself and is now on the wane. Here we have a structure which is of the quintessence of Victorian design, which fits admirably into its surroundings and is an extremely representative structure of its time. I should like to see it remain where it is, and I wish that the Minister was empowered under the Bill to remove it by all means but also to re-erect it in the Square.

Mr. J. Hudson: It also provides water.

Mr. Irvine: As my hon. Friend reminds me, it also provides water, but I regard that as the least of its attractions. It will come as no surprise that an hon. Member from this side of the House should speak in favour of the retention of a memorial of this kind, because although we on this side are all committed to important changes in the economic and social structure of the country, we yield to none in our desire to preserve historical monuments. Not all monuments represent so effectively and accurately as does this fountain the spirit and aspiration of a very important period in our history.
I support the Bill in its general terms. I only wish that the small change to which I have referred could at some stage be effected in it. If what I have said reaches the ears of my hon. Friend the Minister, and of those who are responsible for the development of the plan for Parliament Square, to enable the Buxton Memorial Fountain to be preserved in the Square, then I shall not feel that I have spoken in vain this evening.

9.30 p.m.

Sir Peter Bennett: I only wish to reinforce the remarks of hon. Members on both sides of the House concerning our fear at the danger to pedestrians. The hon. Member

for Ealing, West (Mr. J. Hudson) said that no one ever uses the crossing at Millbank. I can assure him that that is not correct. I often find myself cutting across, and I have watched other people doing it as well. I speak only as a motorist. I am terrified at the risks which people run in London when they take photographs. I know that my heart comes into my mouth frequently in various parts of London.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Ban the motorists.

Sir P. Bennett: People are always going across just a little way from the crossings, and stepping out at unexpected places. One drives with one's heart in one's mouth when driving round London. As to the particular area which we are discussing, I am certain that at some time if there is no safety ledge, an accident will happen. I agree that it is not certain where to put crossings, because wherever they are put people will find another place to cross the road. It is a terrible problem, but I urge that the scheme be considered in the light of some sort of safety ledge so that if people are caught they are not jammed.
I assure the Minister that the time will come when, if there are accidents, there will be an outcry and people will say, "Why did they not think of this at the time?" It is as well to think in advance. I should like to know that some thought is given to those foolish people who break all the rules in spite of all we do, and to whom we must give our protection so that they can be saved in spite of themselves.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I rise only for a few moments to welcome the Bill as a long-needed Measure of traffic improvement, but at the same time, for what it is worth, to try to support what has been said by so many hon. Members on this side of the House. I suppose we all ought to have looked at the plans and the model of the proposed alteration when they were exhibited, so I am told tonight, in this honourable House. But most of us did not do so. Most of us only have time to look at these things immediately before we hear that they are coming up. I did that last week and this week. I found to my sorrow that there were no


proper plans available, and certainly that the model was not available. If any hon. Member is interested, and if the Minister himself will go and look, I am sure it will be agreed that the presentation of these plans left a good deal to be desired.
There was a very small plan which practically no one could read; then there was a larger perspective, and the plan next door to it was upside down, which does not really make for helpful reading. Neither on the small plan, nor in the perspective was there any refuge at the end of Bridge Street. I do not know whether that was a mistake or an oversight; there was certainly no refuge at the end of Bridge Street for hon. Members coming down Whitehall to get to this House. As everybody knows, during the afternoon it is one of the crossings which is most frequented, where the police are always having to hold up the traffic to enable Members and others to cross. It seems to me astounding that there should be no provision for a refuge in the middle of that street.
So far as the centre garden is concerned, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe), and I do wish the right hon. Gentleman would have another look at the design. It may have been approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission. I have had some experience of getting things approved by that body, and it does not always result in the greatest common measure of agreement. All I can say is that if the Festival Gardens in Battersea are going to look anything like that, it will not come up to what the Leader of the House and hon. Members in general hope to see. I say to the Government: Do have another look at this. It is absolutely appalling. It is asymmetric. Why it should be inflicted on us in Parliament Square I do not know.
The other point which strikes me and which has been mentioned by my hon. Friends is the danger of having an 18-inch kerb. It is fantastic in these days to find, in a Bill passing through this honourable House, that the provision of an 18-inch kerb should be deemed to be a public footway. In my opinion it would be much better to have nothing at all, if we are not to have a proper footpath where people can actually escape—and one cannot escape on an 18-inch kerb.
Either we have to have a wide footpath or else nothing at all, so that, before they start, people will realise there is no possibility of a refuge. My own personal view is that if the gardens go through, as prescribed to us, the arrangement will undoubtedly prove the cause of fatal accidents. I was a little sorry to hear the Minister of Works say that the police had decided this and he would not tolerate any alteration. That is not the way to get the best out of a thing.
The great disadvantage of the procedure is that if we try an experiment of an 18-inch kerb we shall find, after a short time, when we want to put a footpath there, that owing to the shape of the gardens and the way the wall has been built we shall be faced either with pulling down the wall or else reducing the carriage way in order to get the width of footpath which I believe will eventually be found to be necessary.
Even if I am wrong, there are a large number of people who take that view. I venture to suggest that we should make the gardens in such a way that we can reduce the size if, after an experimental period of say one or two years, we find, as I believe we shall, that there is a necessity for a wide footpath. I think it will not only be found necessary in a case of every-day traffic but that it will be found even more necessary on days of processions and weddings and so on. After all, Parliament Square is a traditional place where the biggest crowds assemble—at the end of Whitehall, turning round to Westminster Abbey or St. Margaret's Church. I think this is a matter where the police have slipped up and the Government would be wise to say that this will be built experimentally in such a way that, if necessary, it can be altered later on without too much trouble. Subject to that point I think we have no objection to the Bill.

9.38 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works is much obliged to the House for the friendly reception which this Bill has received in principle, and I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) join in the general approval, although there were those points he raised about the desired footway around the central feature. Dealing with the point


about the crossing at the end of Parliament Street to the House; he need not worry about that, because it is outside the area of the plan and that, I imagine, is why the refuge did not appear—that is, the refuge for which he was looking. As far as I know there will be no change in that respect; in any case I think there ought not to be.
The next point was that about the central footway round the central feature, and that is a matter on which I know the City of Westminster is worried. Indeed, that has been expressed by the hon. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), who is a member of the Westminster City Council. Both the Minister of Works and I are old friends of many members and officers of the Westminster City Council, differ though we do in politics, and the last thing we would desire would be to have a quarrel with that local authority. My right hon. Friend will be agreeable to meeting representatives of the City Council in order to hear their views and have a talk about the matter. Whether he can do anything I am honestly doubtful, so it must not be taken that I am giving any undertakings; but he would be agreeable to meeting members of the council and having a friendly talk about the matter.
I hope that the result will be that the City Council will not think it necessary to present a petition and persist in it. They have a perfect right to do so, of course. That is one of the rights of citizens and public authorities. However, as was said by the hon. Member for the Abbey Division, the Bill is late in the Session, and, in fact, almost any petition would mean the danger of killing the Bill, simply because of the time factor. It is not altogether a fair argument, and I cannot press that argument too far, because petitioners have a right to petition, but it would be a tragedy if this great public improvement did not come about, because it is very much needed so as to promote a quicker movement of traffic round the square, particularly in relation to the Festival.
I am stating only a prima facie case, so to speak, but my right hon. Friend is advised that if the changes were made that were desired by the City of Westminster they would involve all sorts of

things—mains, public utilities, and one thing and another, working drawings, and new quantities—and these, with the discussions with the bodies concerned, would involve a delay of from four to six months, and the probability is, because the time now is very tight, that the new facility would not be working by the time the Festival started.

Sir H. Webbe: Sir H. Webbe indicated dissent.

Mr. Morrison: Well, that is what they say; and, of course, it is a difficulty.
I freely admit that one of the sights of London which I enjoy is that of the crowd of people, on the days when Parliament is opened, standing around that Square. This is very naughty of me, but I have told my right hon. Friend that my heart is largely with the City of Westminster, at any rate emotionally, on this point. That appeals to me more than the traffic point, because, as the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) so charmingly said about Londoners, we are a mad lot in the streets anyway; and there is nothing we can do about it. It is perfectly true. I do these things myself, and frighten the gentleman who looks after me out of his life sometimes by suddenly dashing off for the joy of getting past a motor car before it gets on top of me. We Londoners are a mad lot—and I expect that the people of Birmingham are now and again; but I am going there tomorrow and I do not want to say anything bad about Birmingham until I have got away again from the place. I love the sight of those honest people standing around there seeing His Majesty and the procession coming along to the opening of Parliament and other things.
However, the police are very apprehensive about the difficulty of people dashing across there. It will be tempting, of course, because otherwise they might have to go right round the Square to get wherever they wanted to. It is tempting for them to make the dash.

Sir H. Webbe: They will.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman says they will. Of course, there is more than one way of dying, and there is something to be said for that way—it is quick. However, I think it is a very difficult matter to meet these points, as things are,


without getting into the mess that this facility will not be open for the Festival, and my right hon. Friend is in a real difficulty about it, although he is not unsympathetic, and understands the view of the Westminster City Council. I think we had better leave it that he will see the representatives of the Westminster City Council, have a talk with them, and then somebody will convert somebody—or he will not.
It is the case that the model and the picture have been on show, and that it would have been better if the point had been strenuously argued some time ago. I am not making anything of that point. It is one of the things we do. Let them have a talk, to see if anybody can convince anybody, or if an accommodation can be reached in some way—perhaps in the way of looking at the matter in the future at some time, to see if anything can be done. However, I do not want to go into details. Let us see what they can do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson) is an anti-statue man—

Mr. Gibson: Only the equestrian ones.

Mr. Morrison: Well, I love the equestrian ones. I remember when the sword on the statue of Richard Coeur de Lion was bent by the blast of a bomb in the war. I thought it was a great thing to leave it, but when I was not looking our tidy Ministry of Works put the sword straight again. I would not have had it put straight if I had had my way, because it was one of the war scars of London. However, the Ministry of Works are a tidy Department; they did not like it, and they put it straight. I understand my right hon. Friend has a plan to put the statue in a more prominent place, so I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is in for more trouble.
Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West St. Pancras (Mr. Hadyn Davies) always have views about statues and where they should be, but I think that we should leave things of that sort as much as we can. For example, if we played about with the statue of Lord Beaconsfield I do not know what the Primrose League would do about it. They would probably petition us. On the whole we had better leave it as it is, otherwise

we shall have the statues themselves putting in petitions, and we shall never get the Bill at all.

Mr. Hadyn Davies: I am not concerned about the other statues. I am concerned about having the Burghers of Calais put into Parliament Square and made available to the people of London. That is the only one I am worrying about.

Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend has noted the point, but all the opinions he has taken on it seem to be thoroughly deprecatory of that suggestion.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Edge Hill Division of Liverpool (Mr. Irvine) wanted the Buxton Memorial Fountain retained in the Square. I am told that that could not very well be done, because a new road is to be cut right through where it now stands, and that it does not fit in with the architect's design. However, the question is being considered whether it could not be re-sited in Victoria Tower Gardens, just next door to the Palace of Westminster along the Embankment, where a good many people and their children forgather, and where it would be very nice and convenient for them. That is being considered by the Royal Fine Art Commission. It may have to be done that way.
Anxiety has been expressed about the Select Committee stage being the effective stage for detailed argument and discussion. That is true. It probably will not be easy on the Floor of the House; and, of course, Members could not very well appear before the Select Committee; they cannot petition unless a public authority does. I presume it would be open to hon. Members with views on certain details to forward them to Members of the Select Committee, if they so desired. I should not think there would be anything wrong about that.
It is always very sad not to be able to please everybody on these Bills, especially if it is a hybrid Bill. I am reminded of the old days, when the hon. Member for the Abbey Division' and myself were at County Hall, when we used to have a lot of fun either blocking other people's Bills, or petitioning against them, or getting them out of the way. This does rather seem like the good old times. Nevertheless, I think the House as a whole agrees that this is a worthy public improvement, that it ought to be


done, and the only question is whether we can do it with that degree of general consent which is indeed necessary if the Bill is to go forward in time. We are, therefore, very much obliged to the House for the kindly way in which it has received the Bill.

Bill committed to a Select Committee of Six Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection:

Any Petitions against the Bill deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the fifth day after this day to stand referred to the Committee, but if no such Petitions are deposited, the Order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill to be committed to a Committee of the Whole House:

Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, to be heard against the Bill provided that their Petitions are prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House, and Counsel to be heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitions:

Power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Key.]

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENT SQUARE (IMPROVEMENTS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee of the Whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise certain improvements in and around Parliament Square, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses of the Minister of Works incurred for the purposes of any improvement scheme referred to in the said Act, and
(b) any increase in the sums payable put of such moneys, being an increase attributable to any payment out of the Road Fund of grants in respect of the doing of any work authorised by that Act."—[Mr. Key.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — INCOME TAX ARREARS (EX-SERVICE MEN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: This is not the first time that the question of arrears of tax on Service pay has been raised in this House. We had a long discussion on this subject, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will remember, during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. As a result of that discussion the Chancellor of the Exchequer made some welcome concessions. If I recollect these concessions correctly, they were to the effect that while outstanding payments on arrears of tax have to be met, no further claims would be made after 6th July, 1949.
Tonight I am not concerned with the liability to arrears of tax on pay received. What I am concerned with is the method of assessing these arrears, or rather some of the unfortunate results of these methods. It would be quite unfair to underestimate the difficulties in which the Inland Revenue authorities are placed. It was not an easy matter to collect and to collate all the details of each individual's pay in the Services from the various commands both at home and overseas, particularly during the war years.
The rates of pay sometimes differed between one area and another, and between one type of Service and another. There was also the difficulty of the temporary rank and the substantive rank. There was staff pay and what was called Colonial allowances. If I recollect correctly, the Colonial allowances were taxable up to 1943, but were tax-free from 1943 to 1946 and from 1946 onwards they were merged into what were called local overseas allowances and were tax-free again. Quite obviously there must be a very considerable time lag in order to collect all these details and to make anything like a correct assessment.
Having said that, I think it is equally fair to say that as the war began 10 years ago and ended 4 years ago, if the task of the Inland Revenue is difficult, the plight of the ex-Service man is much more difficult. Many of us were quite


unable to keep details of the pay we received month in and month out, and very few of us in the Forces during the war kept all our old pay slips. Following demobilisation, most of us, after a reasonable period, thought that all the tax deductions had been correctly assessed. It therefore comes as a great hardship when suddenly, out of the blue, an ex-Service man is faced with a demand for arrears of taxation going back to 1939 or 1940, when he is in no position to challenge the accuracy or otherwise of the assessment. It is extremely important—and this is the subject to which I want to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention—to reduce to a minimum the chances of error in assessing the arrears of tax.
If the House will forgive me a personal note, I have had a fortunate experience—though so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, it is an unfortunate experience—with my own arrears of taxation. For over a year, a very persistent but polite inspector of taxes had been pressing me to pay arrears of tax alleged to be due on my pay, going back to 1940 or 1941 and amounting to some £109. I challenged the accuracy of the assessment, and after a great deal of correspondence I received a few months ago an extremely apologetic letter from the Income Tax inspector informing me that the War Office had overlooked a direct payment made by me in 1944, which, together with various other discrepancies, on both sides of the balance sheet, meant that instead of owing the Treasury £109, I was owed and received £3. I was in the happy position of being a creditor instead of a debtor; my adverse balance of payments had become a favourable balance of payments for the first and last time in my life. I use these technical phrases in preference to simple jargon so that the right hon. Gentleman can the more easily understand what I am talking about.
Had I not resisted with equal persistency the demands of the inspector, I should have paid, and paid quite wrongly, the sum of £109. As a result of this, I began to ask myself how many other individuals were similarly placed, either because they had not kept their records to check the accuracy of their assessment, or because their persistency was

not equal to that of the inspector in putting forward his demands. I started a few inquiries, and I put down a Question to the right hon. "Gentleman on 27th October. I asked:
if he will give an estimate of the total sum collected by the Inland Revenue authorities during each of the last three financial years as arrears of tax alleged to be due in respect of Army, Navy and Air Force pay; and what proportion of each of these sums has subsequently been found to be based upon incorrect assessments.
To which he replied:
I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available. Cases of the kind that he has in mind have been rare; incorrect assessments have generally been adjusted before collection of the tax."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1949: Vol. 468, c. 177.]
I wonder just how rare they have been. I wrote a letter to the Press on the subject, and as a result I have been absolutely inundated with letters from ex-Service men all over the country. The point I want to make is this. Suppose that I or any other individual concerned were still serving in the Forces, the arrears of tax alleged to be due, which in my case I successfully disputed, would have been deducted from the pay months ago. I would like to quote, from a very large post-bag, three typical cases.
It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I have picked out three cases in completely separate categories in order to give the right hon. Gentleman some idea of the disquiet which exists among the very large section of ex-Service men who are faced with demands for arrears of tax. The first case I wish to quote concerns a former Army officer who received in February this year an assessment from the Income Tax authorities alleging that he owed £127 on 2½ months' pay, which amounted to £309 at the end of his service in 1947–48. When he disputed these figures the Inland Revenue merely informed him that they had been given the figure of £309, and that there was nothing they could do about it. It so happens that this ex-officer, unlike most, had kept all his pay slips and was able to prove conclusively that instead of receiving £309, he had actually


received £170. The excuse in this case put forward by the paymaster's office was what was called "a machining error." I wonder how many of these machining errors are made. This man, who deserved well of his country, is no machine; he is a worthy individual.
The next case concerns a former officer of the Royal Marines, who was taken prisoner at Crete. His wife worked during the war as a lecturer at one of the universities. Both the tax office—in this case at Nottingham—and the Director of Naval Accounts were well aware of this. Last year a claim for underpayment of tax on their joint incomes was put in, amounting to £261. That figure was subsequently raised to £296. At various times the Director of Naval Accounts quoted various figures for arrears of tax on this ex-officer's Service pay, at one time as low as £88. It is clear that in this case there is no proper co-ordination between the Director of Naval Accounts and the tax authorities in Nottingham. If £296 is correct, and neither he nor I know whether it is, how can this ex-officer pay? His wife is no longer earning. They have had considerable expense in setting up a post-war home, and £296, if that is the correct figure, can only be paid out of his savings, if he has any.
The third case concerns another ex-Service man, who merely received a revised post-war credit slip which had been adjusted by deducting the amount alleged to be owed by him in arrears of tax. That raises a big issue. Is it legitimate that post-war credits, when they are due to be repaid, should be adjusted automatically up or down according to whether or not arrears of tax are alleged to be due? That seems to be a high-handed method of dealing with anybody. Such highhanded treatment contrasts rather strikingly with what the right hon. Gentleman said on the Second Reading of the Married Women (Restraint Upon Anticipation) Bill, on 7th November. Referring to the Mountbatten Estates Bill he said it was required
… because changed circumstances and modern taxation made it absolutely essential for Lady Mountbatten to have greater control over the money which had been left to her."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 1011.]
I do not think any further comment is necessary on that score.
It is quite clear that the machinery for assessing these arrears of tax leaves a good deal to be desired. The impression created, rightly or wrongly, is that at least a proportion of the assessments are computed in a rather haphazard fashion. I do not in any sense mean to suggest that the haphazard methods are deliberate. Rather are they due to lack of coordination between one Service Department and the Treasury and to the fact that the Inland Revenue officials are grossly overworked.
From my knowledge of these cases I should say it is quite obvious that there have been great discrepancies. I do not suggest for a moment that they are intentional. No one wishes to make it easier for anyone to evade payment of taxes legitimately due, but it is extremely important that no sense of grievance should be engendered in the mind of the individual concerned. In other words, not only is justice to be done but justice must seem to be done, because our very complex taxation system can only work properly if there is a sense of confidence between the tax payer and the tax collector, in precisely the same way as law and order can only be preserved in a country when there is full co-operation between the police on the one hand and the public on the other.
It is for this reason that I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look more closely into the present machinery for assessing these arrears of tax, and to see that the errors which occur are reduced to a minimum. Where a case of genuine hardship can be proved, and where it is clear that there is inability to pay, I would urge that such cases should be treated with the utmost possible sympathy.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I should like to say how exceedingly glad I am that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) has raised this question tonight. It is a matter which to my knowledge is troubling a very great number of patriotic and loyal people, who desire to be honest with the Inland Revenue, to pay their taxes and fulfil their duties as citizens of this country. On the other hand, despite all their proper endeavours, feelings and responsibilities they consider they are being ill treated by the Inland Revenue Department. The trouble really goes back


to the times of difficulty in the war, when we all know and appreciate the tremendous strain under which the Inland Revenue Department were working, and the difficulty they had in properly preparing assessments.
That is not any cause for them to be blamed, and I do not think anyone would blame them at all; but where the trouble arises is that in these after years the faults which occurred then in the Inland Revenue Department are now being found out or have been found out during the intervening periods, and have resulted in many, particularly ex-Service men, being required to contribute more money in taxation. Generally, the man has left the Services and has returned home to try to settle down in family life. Very often he has to create a home and start to educate his children. Suddenly, this bombshell is thrown at him by the Inland Revenue Department asking him to pay arrears of tax at a time when he is least in a position to do so.
Having regard to the seriousness of the matter, there is nothing I know that the average citizen can do about it except argue with the inspector of taxes or pay. If he pays it is going to create very great hardship for him and his family. If he argues with the inspector it very seldom achieves any result. I frankly confess that I do not know whether this is so or not, but I was wondering whether a taxpayer in those circumstances has any right of appeal to the Commissioners for complete investigation of the assessment upon which the old arrears are based. If he has, I do not believe that there is one ex-Service man taxpayer in 100 who knows of it. If he has not, then there should be some form of tribunal to which these people can appeal to satisfy themselves and to put their minds at rest, and also to put at rest the mind of their inspector of taxes that they are being properly assessed and that there is a proper liability to pay.
I cannot overstress the seriousness of the hardship which is being caused by these late assessments which fall upon men when they cease to receive the substance of the income on which they are assessed, and when they are probably incurring considerably greater liabilities than they had when they were receiving the income. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury may remember a case about

which we had considerable correspondence, one of the most unhappy cases I have ever come across. It was the case of an ex-Service man of the Royal Marines who joined up again at the beginning of the recent war. Eventually, at the age of about 50, he went, I think, into the fire service of the Royal Marines, where he was earning very substantial emolument. His wife was in one of the Services at the same time, earning a separate income. Between them, they were getting very good money.
Apparently what happened—and I am not quoting because I have not got the matter at my fingers' ends—is that there was an error in the assessment of their tax, probably due to the fact that the Inland Revenue had failed to regard them as husband and wife. That resulted years afterwards in the realisation of a serious liability. At that time the man suffered a renewal of an old Service injury, with the result that he lost his highly-paid job in the Royal Marines. He had to move his home at very considerable expense from Scotland to Sussex. His wife came out of the Service, and their total income was reduced to a very much lower level than when the tax was levied upon them. Just at that moment the authorities demanded the arrears of taxation, which were found to have existed years before. Although the right hon. Gentleman did what he could to alleviate the blow, the liability continued to be upon them.
There should be some machinery whereby these matters could be re-opened and reconsidered, so that if there is any blame upon the taxpayer or the Inland Revenue the tribunal could have discretion, to the end that justice might be achieved.

10.15 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): We are really discussing a very narrow point, the liability of ex-Service men for arrears of tax, with particular reference to the assertion, which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) that in all too many cases the assessments proved to be incorrect, and that the individual concerned, not having kept his pay slips and not knowing what he had received, paid the demand, without knowing whether it was right or wrong.
The last time we really debated this, apart from the Debate on the Finance Bill to which the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) referred, was in July last year when the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) raised it and made, what I thought not unusual for him, a very wild and irresponsible speech during which he referred to the Inland Revenue and to those of us who happen at the moment to be at the Treasury as "bloodsuckers." As a result we had, as we do after some of these Debates, a very large postbag which was rather insulting and derogatory. I do not think that after tonight's Debate we shall get letters of that kind because the hon. Member for Windsor and the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) made very reasonable speeches and, indeed, put their case with great clarity and force.
The hon. Member for Windsor indicated the fundamental difficulty which both the Inland Revenue and the Service Departments have been up against when trying to assess correctly, as they do, the liability of those serving to tax. During the war Service personnel were not subject to P.A.Y.E. Many of these difficulties—they are difficulties—which have arisen are due to that fact. Provisional deductions had to be made by the Service paying officers more or less on the information which the individual concerned had given them. As the hon. Member for Windsor pointed out, things moved rather swiftly during the war for some people. When the husband entered the Forces the wife sometimes went into work, and that fact might not have been brought to the attention of the Service paying officer, and therefore, as was the case with the Royal Marine who went North, it was. not until later that the Service paying officer began to catch up on the real situation.
Service paying officers and the Inland Revenue have to abide by the law, and if the incomes of husband and wife come to more than was at first indicated, at some time a new assessment has to be raised and an attempt made to get payment of the tax which is due on their joint income. It may often be that the individual concerned, being a man of great ability, receives rather rapid promotion and it takes time for the authorities concerned to catch up on

the extra emoluments which he earned. As a result, and because we had both the Service paying officers, who often had difficulty in tracing the individuals concerned because they went overseas or otherwise moved about, and also the Inland Revenue, grossly understaffed as it was during the war, arrears began to pile up, and in the years immediately after the war when many millions of men were being demobilised fairly rapidly it was difficult to catch up on the true assessments of very large numbers of ex-Service men.
As the House knows, as a result of that, in 1947 and 1948, a great deal of publicity began to be focused on this matter because men who had returned to civilian employment not unnaturally resented being faced with new assessments years after the actual pay had been received either by them or by their wives. Not all of them, believe me, were as innocent as they pretend to their Members of Parliament; they knew very well that unless they were lucky the Inland Revenue would one day catch up with them. However, it is true to say that many of them were quite unaware—they were otherwise engaged—of the legal liability that they were piling up against themselves.
As the House will remember, during the Debates on the Finance Bill this year great pressure was put on my right hon. and learned Friend to stop assessments on ex-Service men. After much debate, and some hesitation, he agreed that as from 6th July, 1949—the date when the promise was made—no further assessments would be raised on them. Although perhaps that was an act of justice in the sense that we felt an end had to be put to these assessments at some time, it created a good deal of ill-feeling amongst those who, unfortunately, had their assessments raised before 6th July or, what was much more to the point, amongst hundreds of thousands of ex-Service men who had settled for their arrears before July, 1949. We have had in the Treasury a large postbag from individuals who felt that they had a grievance because they were not amongst the lucky few who were outside the limit and could thus take advantage of what my right hon. and learned Friend had promised.
All that is by the way, and is some explanation of how the present unsatisfactory situation has arisen. The point arises, what can we do about it? What I have to tell the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Chichester is that the remedy lies in the hands of the individuals concerned. I am glad to think that their number is dwindling. It arose exclusively out of the circumstances and difficulties associated with the war. Therefore, there must be a fairly early period to these difficulties and to the letters which hon. Members receive.
I want to emphasise that the mistakes are much rarer than the post bag of the hon. Gentleman would lead the House to suppose. He quoted three letters and I assume they were the three best examples he could cull from the letters that had come to him. It is our information, which is correct as far as I can ascertain, that the number of individuals whose assessments have been wrong is not as great as some would have us suppose. In addition to the reasons I have indicated, it is human to err, especially when cases are dealt with not by the Inland Revenue solely but by the Service paying officer first and, following him, by the Inland Revenue. It is only fair to the Inland Revenue to say that nearly all these difficulties have arisen owing to wrong information being given by the Service paying officer to the Inland Revenue. In order to be fair to the Service paying officer, it should be said that he himself has often had insufficient information given to him upon which to base the assessment which he has to pass on to the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the weak link, which is the lack of co-ordination between the Service paying department and the Inland Revenue Department?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I want to say to the hon. Gentleman—and I would like to feel that it would also go out to those men who are feeling a sense of grievance—that they have the remedy in their own hands. If, when they get this assessment, they are in any way unsure or doubtful about its validity, they should immediately query it with the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue, far from objecting to its being queried, would welcome such action

because, although this may strike some hon. Members as strange, the Inland Revenue do not want to extract by mistake Income Tax from men who served in the Forces. They are only too willing—I can say this on behalf of the Treasury and of the Inland Revenue—when a man comes to them with a genuine feeling that his assessment is wrong, to look into it again. They will not only do that, but will go once more—and more than once, if necessary—to the Service paying officer so that he may check his records. If it will help, the Inland Revenue are very willing to put the man concerned in direct touch with his old battalion headquarters or Service paying officer so that, by personal interview or by letter, they will be able to go into the whole question and to check the figures.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point whether an ex-Service taxpayer has a right of appeal to his commissioner of taxes or to anybody else?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Of course, all taxpayers have a right of appeal against an assessment. To many of these ex-Service men, however, the difficulties—for one thing they may be in jobs and may not want to take the time off—of going to the expense of an appeal to commissioners would to them be not worth while. What we are proposing—

Mr. Turton: They have the right to appeal, have they not?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, all taxpayers have that right. What I am proposing is a much simpler and more straightforward method: that they should go to the Income Tax inspector who raises the assessment on them. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that these inspectors are very reasonable people. When anyone talks to them with nothing to hide they are most friendly and helpful. Men who follow this procedure will find that the Inspector of Taxes is willing to go into the figures again and, if necessary, to carry the matter further with the appropriate Service department.
When payment is proved to be due, it is normally quite outside the province of the Inland Revenue to forego it. Under the law, only in certain circumstances can the Inland Revenue allow tax which


is due to go unpaid, and, moreover, they have to report to the Comptroller and Auditor-General all cases where for one reason or another tax has not been levied. What the Inland Revenue does, however, is to temper the wind to the shorn lamb, and where the individual's circumstances have changed, as, for example, in the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Chichester, the Revenue are very willing to spread what tax may be due for past years over as long a period as possible. I do not think from my experience—which is now beginning to lengthen out—that many ex-Service men have found their local Inspector of Taxes unreasonable in this matter.
Post-war credits can, under the law, be taken in satisfaction of arrears of tax

for a certain year, and I am surprised that in the case which has been mentioned the inspector took the post-war credit without consulting the individual concerned. Normally he informs the individual what he proposes to do, and as the individual does not know when he will get his post-war credit anyway, he much prefers to have his arrears wiped off against the problematical time when he will receive his post-war credit.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.